Chart Distance x Screen Size - Standards SMPTE and THX - Page 3 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!



Forum Jump: 
 12Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 119 Old 04-16-2014, 05:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
nathan_h's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: O.A.S.I.S
Posts: 6,236
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 732 Post(s)
Liked: 370
I would recommend about twice the height of the screen = the distance from the screen. so a screen of no more than 2 meters tall. So about 3 meter across (not diagonal) would be about the largest I would attempt.

Speaker placement then becomes a challenge, of course, so people with that large a screen often get an acoustically transparent screen and place the speaker behind it. You can reach some of the discussions about that.

____________________

Current theater & gear: "Nathan's Theater in Search of....".
nathan_h is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 119 Old 04-20-2014, 11:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
oOOBillO0o's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: On the move..
Posts: 566
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_ View Post

http://www.thx.com/home/setup/display.html






Peter

Sorry, I still don't understand.

What I am looking for is, where on the wall do I put the screen?

If I am sitting back 6.5 feet, with a my eye height at 39 inches, the, THX recommended, top of the screen should not be higher than 60 inches? (tan 15 * 78 inches = 20.9, then rounded to 21. 21 + 39 = 60")

Am I doing it right?

(52" Sony LCD HDTV)

McIntosh Labs! What am I listening to?
oOOBillO0o is offline  
post #63 of 119 Old 09-30-2014, 11:03 AM
Member
 
jrcrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 12
i will have 2 rows of seating

what is the maximum and minimum distance for watching on a 120 inch screen with a 4k projector screen?
jrcrunch is online now  
post #64 of 119 Old 11-01-2014, 04:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 5,339
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 466 Post(s)
Liked: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrcrunch View Post
i will have 2 rows of seating

what is the maximum and minimum distance for watching on a 120 inch screen with a 4k projector screen?
If your screen is 120 inch diagonal 16:9, then your screen height is 58.8 inches.

Ultimately it's down to personal preference and comfort, so experimentation is the best way to find out how close you can comfortably sit for long periods with the screen you have at the height it is mounted - the closer you sit the greater the vertical viewing angle becomes. 15 degrees is the recommended vertical viewing angle for comfort, but 35 degrees is the recommended maximum, so there is leeway there.

As for a viewing distance 'range' for 4k, Sony recommend a 1.5 x Screen Height seating distance ratio for 4K, so to get the range you could approach it in one of two ways provided that you are watching 1080 upscaled to 4k since that currently all your source material is probably 1080, and I would think that would be the limitation from a source quality perspective.

Combine Sonys recommendation with THXs recommended range of 2.4 x SH (optimal) to 3.68 x SH (back row) which is based on viewing angles/immersion, and their front row limitation appearing to hinge on good quality 1080, to give you a range of 1.5 to 3.68.

Or reduce the back row by a similar amount as the front based on Sonys recommendation to give you something like 1.5SH 2.78SH.

But the closer seating distance will rely on good quality source material.

Having said that, THX have also said that they feel that a 60 degree viewing angle (2xSH) is probably too wide for films (this is also SPMTEs closest recommended seating distance), but I'm not sure if they are basing that on a comfort perspective (too much eye movement) or an image quality perspective. Maybe a combination of the two.

Considering you're using upscaled 1080 rather than 4k as your source material, that may ultimately determine how close you want to sit, so we're back to experimenting to see what works best for you.



HTH

Gary
jrcrunch and KSGohio like 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 offline  
post #65 of 119 Old 04-04-2016, 12:03 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 1
New Theater

Hi all. So if this is painfully obvious and I am just too dense to recognize it, please forgive me. But I am building a new home with a dedicated theater room, and I am uncertain my ideal screen size for the space.

Projector is Sony VLP-HW40ES and can be mounted anywhere I would like (suggestions on THAT would be much appreciated too!)

Room dimensions: 14' (where screen would go) x 20', with platform for two rows of seating approximately 13' back from the screen wall.

Should I go with a 100" or 120" screen?\

Thank you!
yodatodd is offline  
post #66 of 119 Old 04-06-2016, 07:54 AM
Advanced Member
 
anthonybuchanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 510
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 32
I really do get why people rely more on a white paper done by someone they do not know that made conclusions based on criteria that they don't know versus what they see with their own eyes.

Rather than use these types of charts to run your life you should:

1. Setup your projector at different locations in the room.
2. Change the zoom to different sizes of screen.
3. Sit at different distances from the screen.

Then make a decision based on what you see and what you yourself like. This is a far better approach than letting these guys tell you what to like. Hope this helps.
anthonybuchanan is offline  
post #67 of 119 Old 04-06-2016, 09:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 5,339
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 466 Post(s)
Liked: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonybuchanan View Post
I really do get why people rely more on a white paper done by someone they do not know that made conclusions based on criteria that they don't know versus what they see with their own eyes.

Rather than use these types of charts to run your life you should:

1. Setup your projector at different locations in the room.
2. Change the zoom to different sizes of screen.
3. Sit at different distances from the screen.

Then make a decision based on what you see and what you yourself like. This is a far better approach than letting these guys tell you what to like. Hope this helps.
Oh the irony

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 #68 of 119 Old 04-07-2016, 12:41 PM
Advanced Member
 
anthonybuchanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 510
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonybuchanan View Post
I really do get why people rely more on a white paper done by someone they do not know that made conclusions based on criteria that they don't know versus what they see with their own eyes.

Rather than use these types of charts to run your life you should:

1. Setup your projector at different locations in the room.
2. Change the zoom to different sizes of screen.
3. Sit at different distances from the screen.

Then make a decision based on what you see and what you yourself like. This is a far better approach than letting these guys tell you what to like. Hope this helps.
Typo above.

I DON'T get it.
anthonybuchanan is offline  
post #69 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 11:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 19,839
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 760 Post(s)
Liked: 587
The standards set from groups like SMPTE and THX involve the science behind motion picture images. I think most view them as the starting point for seeking the most accurate image from their projector/screen. Tweaking those standards to fit personal preferences or the inherit compromises most of us use to adapt to our individual situations is part of the process.

For those interested in learning more about SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture & Television Engineers) here's a link to their site:

https://www.smpte.org/about
krichter1 likes this.

Retired Moderator
rboster is online now  
post #70 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 11:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
anthonybuchanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 510
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by rboster View Post
The standards set from groups like SMPTE and THX involve the science behind motion picture images. I think most view them as the starting point for seeking the most accurate image from their projector/screen. Tweaking those standards to fit personal preferences or the inherit compromises most of us use to adapt to our individual situations is part of the process.

For those interested in learning more about SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture & Television Engineers) here's a link to their site:

https://www.smpte.org/about
I just can't help but think that everything they suggest is just based on their own personal preference.

It just seems like a "make work" job they have versus something really useful and concrete such as CR research done by people like Darin.

Do they actually say my 130" diagonal 2.39 screen is NOT enjoyable at my preferred 6' to 7.5' viewing distance? Do they say that?
anthonybuchanan is offline  
post #71 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 11:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 4,673
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 653 Post(s)
Liked: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonybuchanan View Post

I DON'T get it.
Pants come in all sizes but only one size fits each one of us comfortably. If you are designing a movie theater you have to have an abundance of seats roughly distributed in a range similar to what people like. There are outliers to any normal distribution data set. Sounds like you are one of those points. A size 58” waist is such a pair of pants and so is a 24” you can’t expect a store to stock too many of those sizes.

These outfits are just setting guidelines not rules for individuals. You can sit as close as you like. If you are advising someone you should shoot for the middle as a starting point. Knowing you may be on the end of the bell curve yourself. After you tell them the starting point I like your advice of finding your own place.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #72 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 11:34 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 19,839
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 760 Post(s)
Liked: 587
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonybuchanan View Post
I just can't help but think that everything they suggest is just based on their own personal preference.

It just seems like a "make work" job they have versus something really useful and concrete such as CR research done by people like Darin.

Do they actually say my 130" diagonal 2.39 screen is NOT enjoyable at my preferred 6' to 7.5' viewing distance? Do they say that?
They have been around for 100 years and recognized by the film and TV industry as the standard bearers. If you chose to abide by their recommendations or don't abide by them, it's your call.

The important criteria to use is what you and those viewing your screen enjoy...that's the only set of standards you need to use. BUT, just because you chose to believe the Motion Picture and Television standards are wrong doesn't make it so....chose to believe or not believe. This isn't a "truther" debate.

Retired Moderator
rboster is online now  
post #73 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 11:46 AM
Home Theater Lover!
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 9,575
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2525 Post(s)
Liked: 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by yodatodd View Post
Hi all. So if this is painfully obvious and I am just too dense to recognize it, please forgive me. But I am building a new home with a dedicated theater room, and I am uncertain my ideal screen size for the space.

Projector is Sony VLP-HW40ES and can be mounted anywhere I would like (suggestions on THAT would be much appreciated too!)

Room dimensions: 14' (where screen would go) x 20', with platform for two rows of seating approximately 13' back from the screen wall.

Should I go with a 100" or 120" screen?\

Thank you!
I certainly would not go 100" - 120" would be better, if your first row is 13' back. I sit 11' 3" from a 122" diagonal 16:9 screen. It's not too big. But you could set up your projector and experiment on the wall too. Make sure you factor in where your speakers will go. Give us a call for screen quotes if you would like.

AV Science, Inc. Direct (585) 671-2972 craig@avscience.com www.avscience.com Like us on Facebook

Epson 5040 / 6040 now available The new JVC RS4500 available for pre order !

My theater pics - http://www.avsforum.com/photopost/sh...hp?cat=2386514
Craig Peer is offline  
post #74 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 12:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 5,339
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 466 Post(s)
Liked: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonybuchanan View Post
I just can't help but think that everything they suggest is just based on their own personal preference.

It just seems like a "make work" job they have versus something really useful and concrete such as CR research done by people like Darin.
That's quite funny. Darin himself refers to the likes of THX and SMPTE from time to time because they have been doing research and making standards in the subject too, and for quite some time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonybuchanan View Post
Do they actually say my 130" diagonal 2.39 screen is NOT enjoyable at my preferred 6' to 7.5' viewing distance? Do they say that?
No, they're guidelines and are just that - you can do what ever you like to suit your own personal preferences, but what you have to be aware of is that many people don't realise how close they can sit to a projected image if they want to. Having the data from SMPTE etc to hand puts things into perspective and allows people to see what kind of range the seating is in a commercial theatre, and they can use that as a guide to what they can do at home (or measure out where they sit in a commercial theatre and replicate that). You'll be surprised how many people buy what they think is a big screen (it's bigger than their tv so it's 'big') and sit at the back of the room which is often the equivalent of beyond the back row of a commercial theatre. Over on another forum, there was a guy who for around 8 years would constantly argue that people couldn't and shouldn't sit closer than 3xSH because of various nonsensical reasons. There are some strange people out there...

Did you know that 3xSH was originally determined by film quality/projector mechanics vs immersion/closer seating/visual acuity back in the very early 50s? It's due to research. THX did similar research back in the early 80s to arrive at their recommendations. But they're just that - recommendations, they're not telling you to sit there.

Some people like to understand where the recommendations come from rather than blindly follow, despite the heritage of the source data, so for some it's an interesting subject to look into more deeply.

I prefer sitting closer than the guidelines after testing how close I like to sit, but the info from the likes of THX etc helped me get there, though ultimately I had to wait for 1080 to arrive before I could do that. Sometimes the technology is the limiting factor (just like film was back in the 50s).

That's why you often see us telling people to experiment by projecting onto a wall and testing different sizes and aspect ratios along with different seating distances so they can arrive at something that suits their personal preferences. They often need to be told they can sit a lot closer than they think though.

Gary
rboster 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 offline  
post #75 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 12:50 PM
Advanced Member
 
anthonybuchanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 510
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by rboster View Post
They have been around for 100 years and recognized by the film and TV industry as the standard bearers. If you chose to abide by their recommendations or don't abide by them, it's your call.

The important criteria to use is what you and those viewing your screen enjoy...that's the only set of standards you need to use. BUT, just because you chose to believe the Motion Picture and Television standards are wrong doesn't make it so....chose to believe or not believe. This isn't a "truther" debate.
I never said these smart people were wrong.


Never said that.
anthonybuchanan is offline  
post #76 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 12:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,481
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonybuchanan View Post
I really do get why people rely more on a white paper done by someone they do not know that made conclusions based on criteria that they don't know versus what they see with their own eyes.
...
This discussion seems to be going in an OK direction. But I do want to point out that we do know the criteria used. THX and SMPTE are very explicit about how they arrive at their recommendations.
erkq is online now  
post #77 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 01:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
anthonybuchanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 510
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
That's quite funny. Darin himself refers to the likes of THX and SMPTE from time to time because they have been doing research and making standards in the subject too, and for quite some time.



No, they're guidelines and are just that - you can do what ever you like to suit your own personal preferences, but what you have to be aware of is that many people don't realise how close they can sit to a projected image if they want to. Having the data from SMPTE etc to hand puts things into perspective and allows people to see what kind of range the seating is in a commercial theatre, and they can use that as a guide to what they can do at home (or measure out where they sit in a commercial theatre and replicate that). You'll be surprised how many people buy what they think is a big screen (it's bigger than their tv so it's 'big') and sit at the back of the room which is often the equivalent of beyond the back row of a commercial theatre. Over on another forum, there was a guy who for around 8 years would constantly argue that people couldn't and shouldn't sit closer than 3xSH because of various nonsensical reasons. There are some strange people out there...

Did you know that 3xSH was originally determined by film quality/projector mechanics vs immersion/closer seating/visual acuity back in the very early 50s? It's due to research. THX did similar research back in the early 80s to arrive at their recommendations. But they're just that - recommendations, they're not telling you to sit there.

Some people like to understand where the recommendations come from rather than blindly follow, despite the heritage of the source data, so for some it's an interesting subject to look into more deeply.

I prefer sitting closer than the guidelines after testing how close I like to sit, but the info from the likes of THX etc helped me get there, though ultimately I had to wait for 1080 to arrive before I could do that. Sometimes the technology is the limiting factor (just like film was back in the 50s).

That's why you often see us telling people to experiment by projecting onto a wall and testing different sizes and aspect ratios along with different seating distances so they can arrive at something that suits their personal preferences. They often need to be told they can sit a lot closer than they think though.

Gary

I hear you brother. Amen.


I should have maybe just said in the beginning there are other HT recommendations that are more important than this one.


I know these people are 10 times smarter than I am and they have done some really important stuff it just seems like this one is one of those where one of the bosses said,


Boss: "Hey Hendersen what are you working on today".
Hendersen: "I just finished the project you had me working on".
Boss: "What are you working on next?"
Hendersen: "My week is clear I don't have any other projects I was thinking of going to the beach".
Boss: "What? You're going to the beach?"
Boss: "Makeup some damn white paper and tell people where to sit in their HT".
Boss: "And put our seal on it to make it real official like".
Hendersen: "Okay boss".
anthonybuchanan is offline  
post #78 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 02:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 19,839
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 760 Post(s)
Liked: 587
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonybuchanan View Post
I never said these smart people were wrong.


Never said that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonybuchanan View Post
I hear you brother. Amen.


I should have maybe just said in the beginning there are other HT recommendations that are more important than this one.


I know these people are 10 times smarter than I am and they have done some really important stuff it just seems like this one is one of those where one of the bosses said,


Boss: "Hey Hendersen what are you working on today".
Hendersen: "I just finished the project you had me working on".
Boss: "What are you working on next?"
Hendersen: "My week is clear I don't have any other projects I was thinking of going to the beach".
Boss: "What? You're going to the beach?"
Boss: "Makeup some damn white paper and tell people where to sit in their HT".
Boss: "And put our seal on it to make it real official like".
Hendersen: "Okay boss".
Again, they didn't pull these standards out of thin air....it's based on testing and science over the last 100 years. I'd love to see links that discredits the SMPTE.

I'll leave this discussion by quoting Lincoln:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Retired Moderator
rboster is online now  
post #79 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 02:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
anthonybuchanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 510
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by rboster View Post
Again, they didn't pull these standards out of thin air....it's based on testing and science over the last 100 years. I'd love to see links that discredits the SMPTE.

I'll leave this discussion by quoting Lincoln:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
I will report this cheap shot to the moderator.

If you belive this seating chart is any more than........ then your cheap shot applies to you and only you.

Think for yourself.
anthonybuchanan is offline  
post #80 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 02:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,481
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonybuchanan View Post
I will report this cheap shot to the moderator.

...
Rboster used to be a moderator himself. I'm sure he knows the limits.
erkq is online now  
post #81 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 02:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
anthonybuchanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 510
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
Rboster used to be a moderator himself. I'm sure he knows the limits.
People know limits and violate them all the time.
anthonybuchanan is offline  
post #82 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 04:41 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,442
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1128 Post(s)
Liked: 1764
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
THX and SMPTE are very explicit about how they arrive at their recommendations.
Have they been? I recall that I had to ask THX at a tradeshow how they came up with their number and I don't recall them making it public that they used a 1080p display and had people move back until they couldn't see pixels anymore. Lots of things a claimed to be scientific, but when you find you how they did their testing their results aren't quite as solid for different situations as some people seem to think.

Another problem is misinterpreting what a standard means. I haven't read the previous posts close enough to see if some people are still making the mistake of thinking that a particular recommended viewing ratio for commercial theaters was a recommendation for the best viewing ratio, when it said nothing about larger angles being worse, especially when a recommendation for the smallest viewing ratio for any theater in a particular commercial theater means that average seats have a much larger viewing ratio than the recommended value.

--Darin
darinp2 is offline  
post #83 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 05:23 PM
Advanced Member
 
anthonybuchanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 510
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Thus is too funny.

This rbooater character is even making claims that Lincoln made quotes that are not even Lincolns quotes.

Read this.
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/17/remain-silent/

How can we beleive roasters seating charts if he can't even shoot straight with quotes.
anthonybuchanan is offline  
post #84 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 07:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,481
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post
Have they been? I recall that I had to ask THX at a tradeshow how they came up with their number and I don't recall them making it public that they used a 1080p display and had people move back until they couldn't see pixels anymore. Lots of things a claimed to be scientific, but when you find you how they did their testing their results aren't quite as solid for different situations as some people seem to think.

Another problem is misinterpreting what a standard means. I haven't read the previous posts close enough to see if some people are still making the mistake of thinking that a particular recommended viewing ratio for commercial theaters was a recommendation for the best viewing ratio, when it said nothing about larger angles being worse, especially when a recommendation for the smallest viewing ratio for any theater in a particular commercial theater means that average seats have a much larger viewing ratio than the recommended value.

--Darin
EDIT: Wait... Darinp2? What gives? I thought I was responding to Anthony. You've been around forever and know a lot! How is this confusing?

Guys at trade shows aren't known to be fountains of technical knowledge.

Recommendations are given in degrees of viewing angle (what I assume you mean by viewing ratio). They are given as a range, not a single value. This governs where the frontmost and rearmost row can go for a given screen size. It's all very clearly presented and from your confused writing about your confusion I can only surmise you have never even looked at them. If you had, you would not be so confused.
erkq is online now  
post #85 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 08:24 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,999
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 443 Post(s)
Liked: 247
My recommendation is to forget about SMPTE and THX and to decide for yourself. Sony recommends (for 4K) to sit up to 1.6 picture heights from the screen, but this I find a bit too close; after much experimentation I've come to ~ 2 picture heights. But this is a very personal preference.
millerwill is offline  
post #86 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 08:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,481
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post
My recommendation is to forget about SMPTE and THX and to decide for yourself. Sony recommends (for 4K) to sit up to 1.6 picture heights from the screen, but this I find a bit too close; after much experimentation I've come to ~ 2 picture heights. But this is a very personal preference.
Both SMPTE and THX give a range, not a single value. For a single value I agree, I doubt a strict 1.6 sh would satisfy very many. And it's ambiguous as well. Is it a 2.35 screen or a 16:9? At 1.6 sh I'd be sitting 8.5 feet back from my 10 foot wide screen. I wouldn't like that much either. It would be way off both SMPTE and THX recommendations as well... far too close.
erkq is online now  
post #87 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 09:31 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,442
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1128 Post(s)
Liked: 1764
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
Guys at trade shows aren't known to be fountains of technical knowledge.
For big companies I would agree that is often the case, although there are times I get to talk to people on the front lines of making decisions.

For very small companies where I get to talk to technical people I disagree with a basic question like I asked in this case. This was just after they had released a number for home. I haven't looked to see if they came up with new numbers since then, but even so it is important to know what their criteria was to come up with their number(s).
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
Recommendations are given in degrees of viewing angle (what I assume you mean by viewing ratio).
Yep. They define each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
They are given as a range, not a single value. This governs where the frontmost and rearmost row can go for a given screen size. It's all very clearly presented and from your confused writing about your confusion I can only surmise you have never even looked at them. If you had, you would not be so confused.
Are you referring to something other than the 26 degree requirement and 36 degree recommendation from THX and if so, what are the specific numbers for 1080p and how did they determine them if you think they didn't determine a largest viewing angle for 1080p just the way they told me they came up with that number?

Do you know what those 26 and 36 degree numbers for commercial theaters meant? If so, what would you say they meant?

--Darin

Last edited by darinp2; 04-14-2016 at 09:39 PM.
darinp2 is offline  
post #88 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 09:53 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,999
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 443 Post(s)
Liked: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
Both SMPTE and THX give a range, not a single value. For a single value I agree, I doubt a strict 1.6 sh would satisfy very many. And it's ambiguous as well. Is it a 2.35 screen or a 16:9? At 1.6 sh I'd be sitting 8.5 feet back from my 10 foot wide screen. I wouldn't like that much either. It would be way off both SMPTE and THX recommendations as well... far too close.
As I said, I've iterated quite a bit before settling on my preferred location, which is with my eyes ~ 10.5 ft from 128"wide 16x9 pics and 144" wide 2.35 pics. (This a 72" high pic for 16x9 and 60" high for 2.35.)
millerwill is offline  
post #89 of 119 Old 04-14-2016, 11:22 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,442
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1128 Post(s)
Liked: 1764
One more about this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
THX and SMPTE are very explicit about how they arrive at their recommendations.
For 1080p displays does THX say whether their value came from a DLP, a regular LCD, an LCD with SmoothScreen, etc.? For the criteria of seeing pixel structures (what they told me) those would tend to be different and so would the visibility for artifacts, both from screen and from projectors. As far as seeing artifacts, would that be using some of the highest quality sources, or noisier sources. I wouldn't put DIRECTV 1080p content in the same category as 1080p Blu-ray for instance. Things like that matter to me if I am going to take someone else's opinion as applying to my situation and don't consider them having been "very explicit" if they aren't provide those kinds of details about how they arrived at their recommendations.

--Darin
darinp2 is offline  
post #90 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 04:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 4,673
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 653 Post(s)
Liked: 222
Until recently my thinking has been in the mind set like it has for the last decade that resolution and pixel size as some number of degrees of our cone of vision was one of the deciding factors and a key factor. In fact I started a thread about this last week and after a couple days of thinking about it and talking with some very bright and informed people here my thoughts suddenly became clear to me on the subject. I believe quite a few of the guidelines we took for the gospel are now up for interpretation. In looking at the data some groups have collected on where the threshold of being able identify a smaller resolution from a larger one are of course tied to the pixel size but that point is nowhere near the threshold of discerning and resolving a single pixel. In fact as close as I can figure the two are about 10X apart in terms of seating distance. Of course as Darin noted the technology DLP/LCD etc plays a role. If I had to guess 10X might be the number for DLP and 8X for LCD as both ends of the observation are lessened by the structure of the LCD pixel compared to the better DLP pixel.

The days of testing when a body of people can see a pixel are over and really should have been over a long time ago. Pixel size on the other hand is important as it directly relates to these other qualities in our vision that basically can tell the difference between reality and a projected image and not identifying one pixel from the next. The old standard was based on the Snellen eye chart measurement of 1/60 of one degree of our vision being the pixel size when exceeded we could begin to see benefits of the next better resolution. That number was a bit arbitrary as tests have shown the real point is much smaller than that and when we can discern a pixel is greater than that. It is a great number for a 20/20 eye test black E on white paper but that’s about it IMO. Even if you only half believe the data or rather believe half the seating distance numbers reported. Both ends of the acuity range are outside any normal persons desired seating distance even the outliers are included. No one will ever desire sitting so close to 4k to be bothered by a pixel and never so far back to not see benefits even if very slight.

What resolution for a given viewer is a different question and there will be many other improvements attached to UHD that 1080P most likely won’t get.

Coming around to be on topic here. It is totally about personal choice and immersion and nothing else. Images are not to the point of realism but to a point of close enough.

My closing thought is this I’m a Boston Celtics fan but interject you favorite team in its place. And going to a NBA game is not watching it on a projector it is something better than 8k as it is a real vision. But if you were given free tickets to a game and told you could sit in any seat you wanted to watch realism you would most likely pick half court first row. That would be like sitting 3 foot from a 160 “wrap-around screen. We would be moving our eyes head and body for a couple hours to take in the game and watch it and loving every second. Commercial theaters and their specs are to accommodate as many people as they can to maximize profits and they know the limits of enjoyable and I’m not paying good money to sit there. At home now there are no limits and really haven’t been for a long time with even 1080 and most people desires. Guidelines are great as a point of reference. Design your theater to best suit yourself and your family and friends and no reason to pack 500 people in your room.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
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