Chart Distance x Screen Size - Standards SMPTE and THX - Page 4 - 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 #91 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 06:28 AM
Advanced Member
 
jh901's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 992
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 406 Post(s)
Liked: 143
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?
I don't know what "they" say, but I'd not be comfortable at 7.5' from a roughly 50" screen height. I'd be inclined to suggest that you are doing it wrong irrespective of your religious belief in the notion that 'personal preference' is all that matters. 'Personal preference' is flat out wrong most of the time. Curiosity is where it's at.

HT: Panasonic BDT 460 | JVC RS600 | 106" x 45" Stewart ST 100 | Marantz AV7005 | NAD M27 | Elac Uni-Fi UF5, UC5, Debut B6 | Focal CMS Sub
Stereo: Cary Audio 306 SACD Pro | Cary Audio SLP-05 tube line level | Cary Audio SA-200.2 | Focal Diablo Utopia III
Den: Panasonic BDT 220 | 60" Panasonic VT60
jh901 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 10:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 399 Post(s)
Liked: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post
One more about this:
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
I've been trying to find my references and I can't. I looked into this at a fairly deep level when I was designing my HT back in 2006. So I won't carry on in too much detail. But as I remember:

THX recommendations are based on ergonomic things like when does the feeling of immersion happen? When do you start having to move your head too much? How much brightness can the eye comfortably take in a dark room? How much light do you need to see details and color well? Where should the screen be placed vertically so you don't feel like you're craning your neck? SMPTE I remember even less of... just that it assumes the display type is film.

I never even thought about the fact THX doesn't bring display type into the equation. I just selected a 1080p projector that I liked and lost patience with all but the best Blu-ray and HD-DVD recordings. I don't watch any cable, TV, DVDs, or streaming. So, yeah... I have a large blind spot.

I do think Sony's 1.6 screen height is way out of my bounds. I know they're touting 4k, but it is no longer ergonomic, IMHO.
erkq is offline  
post #93 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 10:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 4,508
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 568 Post(s)
Liked: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

I do think Sony's 1.6 screen height is way out of my bounds. I know they're touting 4k, but it is no longer ergonomic, IMHO.
They don’t need to tout 4k by telling you that you can sit 1.6 SH away. It is reported you could begin to see the benefits of 4k over 1080p on a 100” screen from 60 feet away.

If you want to sit 1.6 SH away that’s up to you. The image will look great that close just as it will from 2.5 SH away where a lot of people will sit.

If someone wants to sit 1.6 SH I think its fine if they are recommending everyone do that then that’s crazy because some guy might want to sit 1.2 SH away and that’s cool too.
erkq likes this.


Bud

bud16415 is offline  
post #94 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 11:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 399 Post(s)
Liked: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
...

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.
Whew... I can't keep up. Anyway... this is an interesting idea. But at a BB game, each viewer has, in effect, a perfectly placed curved screen around just them where the their line of sight is always at a perfect 90 degrees to the screen. In a theater, the screen is flat, so the closer you sit, the more the image at the screen edges are elongated. In a BB game you follow the action up and down the "screen". In a theater, the program content may be designed for this kind of viewing, but most often is not.
erkq is offline  
post #95 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 11:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 4,508
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 568 Post(s)
Liked: 192
Yep you can’t do anything about that if you sit in the back row or the front row in real life you get a reality view of the world and a screen is or should be a window into a pure illusion of reality. Almost all of our vision both in real life and on screen is peripheral vision try and look at this X I just typed and without looking away from that X tell me what the word is 2 or 3 lines above or two or 3 words to the left or right.

I actually agree with you I don’t have to sit close at all to the screen to become totally immersed in the content. Watch children watch a front projection movie they are interested in and have no idea how it works. See what they do and that’s the way we should all watch.

Most of the displays we watched in life didn’t allow us to change size and then we get projection and it’s easy to be drawn in to going larger. Sometimes I think that’s what happens.
erkq likes this.


Bud

bud16415 is offline  
post #96 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 11:51 AM
Senior Member
 
anthonybuchanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Liked: 24
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.
I seems to me you are just trying really hard to be able to say this standards body is correct.

Why doesn't someone ask Henderson how he came up with chart?

He might say he threw darts on a wall.
anthonybuchanan is offline  
post #97 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 12:09 PM
Senior Member
 
anthonybuchanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Liked: 24
[QUOTE=erkq;43292898]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?./QUOTE]

I've been around forever too.

I'm also a leader.

I am no follower just for the sake of being a follower. I follow only after I've investigated for myself.

For instance, Darin did all his CR research and shared it here. I thought, wow he has been around a long time but I want to see for myself if he is presenting something worth me implementing in my own HT or is it worth no more than the ink it would be on if printed.

I was prepared to dismiss it however it was very useful and I recommend anyone here reading it and implementing some of what he is saying. I think Darin is an awesome contributor here.

When I purchased my projector in 2010 I read a lot of comments to about the LG CF181D however I was not prepared to follow them until I tried it out side by side with 2 other projectors. I returned the other two.

You are a Follower right erkq?
anthonybuchanan is offline  
post #98 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 12:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 399 Post(s)
Liked: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonybuchanan View Post
I seems to me you are just trying really hard to be able to say this standards body is correct.

...
Correct? No. As starting place? Yes. Personal preference is "correct". I believe I've posted as such many times.
erkq is offline  
post #99 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 12:40 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,420
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1107 Post(s)
Liked: 1677
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
THX recommendations are based on ergonomic things like when does the feeling of immersion happen? When do you start having to move your head too much? How much brightness can the eye comfortably take in a dark room? How much light do you need to see details and color well? Where should the screen be placed vertically so you don't feel like you're craning your neck?
I know they do take multiple things into account and do their best to make good recommendations. I admit that I haven't followed all of the posts in this thread, but just want to give a wrap-up of some points I wanted to get across:

- Shortly after THX released a closest viewing ratio for home for 1080p years ago they told me that the limiting factor for that number was seeing pixel structure. If a person ran that same test to see how close they could get before seeing pixel structure with their current display they could get a much different value.
- There has been much confusion at times about what the 26 degree requirement and 36 degree recommendation for THX in order to certify theaters meant. This was for worst case as far as viewers being too far away from the screen for commercial theaters with many seats. They were not recommending that people sit at a location where the viewing angle was 36 degrees, but that there not be a single seat in the theater where the viewing angle was less than 36 degrees, in which case most seats would result in higher angles.

I think the 26 and 36 values were easily misinterpreted and they could have probably been clearer long ago about what those meant.

It is always possible that people have understood what those meant for a while and I just missed the transition.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #100 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 12:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 399 Post(s)
Liked: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonybuchanan View Post

I've been around forever too.
...
I see. I just haven't seen the input of, say, Darin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonybuchanan View Post
I think Darin is an awesome contributor here.
...
Me too!

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonybuchanan View Post
...
You are a Follower right erkq?
Hardly! I push the envelope. I love to talk about it. It's one of my passions! So you gave me an excuse!

Dedicated space with projector room, AT screen, 8 AE-15 IB subs. (No need for butt-kickers!) 7 channels (soon to be 11) of hand built Dynaudio tri-amp'd speakers. yes, 22 amps and 7 electronic crossovers, parametric eq plus calibrating equipment. We are trying to love Game of Thrones, but my wife is completely in love with the cello in the theme music through these Dynaudios. An I1Pro 2 to profile a C6 with CalMAN, Lumagen and eeColor LUT boxes. The newest JVC projector. Honestly, do yourself a favor and check the JVCs out, though they are nowhere near perfect. (I'll PM you a list of their pro/con if you want.) But OMG, you should at least have a look! Even my wife is in love. She hit the roof when I bought it without her knowing (never try to surprise your wife with a big ticket item.) But now she's enthralled. Can hardly wait for UHD to get sorted so we can enjoy HDR, P3 color and (JVC's faux version of) 4k.

I really love this stuff and take any opportunity to share my journey. And these forums have been invaluable. I say, dig in and have fun!
erkq is offline  
post #101 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 12:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 399 Post(s)
Liked: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post
...

I think the 26 and 36 values were easily misinterpreted and they could have probably been clearer long ago about what those meant.

It is always possible that people have understood what those meant for a while and I just missed the transition.

--Darin
Thanks Darin. I have understood this.
erkq is offline  
post #102 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 01:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 5,221
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 388 Post(s)
Liked: 210
As Darin says (and I'm sure it was him who I first noted pointed this out many years ago and made me realise that was what it really meant), it's not unusual, even today, to see some online viewing distance calculators (including some very popular ones) say that 36 degrees is THXs recommended viewing angle. I've emailed a few of them to say that 36 is where they recommend the back row should be, not where you should sit, and given them a link to THXs website where it's documented with an image. One of them has added that note into the text prior to the calculator, but the calculator itself still says it's the recommended viewing angle. No wonder there is confusion about it.

The other viewing angles, such as their 'optimal'viewing angle, and very front row are not so well documented, but the info is out there. I think I've mentioned that already in previous posts.

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 #103 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 01:41 PM
Senior Member
 
anthonybuchanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
I see. I just haven't seen the input of, say, Darin.

Me too!


Hardly! I push the envelope. I love to talk about it. It's one of my passions! So you gave me an excuse!

Dedicated space with projector room, AT screen, 8 AE-15 IB subs. (No need for butt-kickers!) 7 channels (soon to be 11) of hand built Dynaudio tri-amp'd speakers. yes, 22 amps and 7 electronic crossovers, parametric eq plus calibrating equipment. We are trying to love Game of Thrones, but my wife is completely in love with the cello in the theme music through these Dynaudios. An I1Pro 2 to profile a C6 with CalMAN, Lumagen and eeColor LUT boxes. The newest JVC projector. Honestly, do yourself a favor and check the JVCs out, though they are nowhere near perfect. (I'll PM you a list of their pro/con if you want.) But OMG, you should at least have a look! Even my wife is in love. She hit the roof when I bought it without her knowing (never try to surprise your wife with a big ticket item.) But now she's enthralled. Can hardly wait for UHD to get sorted so we can enjoy HDR, P3 color and (JVC's faux version of) 4k.

I really love this stuff and take any opportunity to share my journey. And these forums have been invaluable. I say, dig in and have fun!
I hear you Brother.

Thanks it's been fun.
anthonybuchanan is offline  
post #104 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 01:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 5,221
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 388 Post(s)
Liked: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonybuchanan View Post
I seems to me you are just trying really hard to be able to say this standards body is correct.

Why doesn't someone ask Henderson how he came up with chart?

He might say he threw darts on a wall.
According to Tom Holman of THX, they went back to some Kodak information dating back to the 50s, and just like Fox did before them, based it on image quality (visibility of film grain/sharpness, scratches, dirt etc, and projector mechanics) and immersion (closer is more immersive).

So it's research based on what you actually see in a real theatre, not on guesswork.

I'm guessing that with digital (1080) being cleaner (no projector mechanics issues except focus and tech differences, and tvs having different issues), and with film usually using a 2k DI, that the same recommendations still apply. THX did use to apply the caveat that it was with good quality source material on the website.

No darts involved.

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 #105 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 02:03 PM
Senior Member
 
anthonybuchanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
According to Tom Holman of THX, they went back to some Kodak information dating back to the 50s, and just like Fox did before them, based it on image quality (visibility of film grain/sharpness, scratches, dirt etc, and projector mechanics) and immersion (closer is more immersive).

So it's research based on what you actually see in a real theatre, not on guesswork.

I'm guessing that with digital (1080) being cleaner (no projector mechanics issues except focus and tech differences, and tvs having different issues), and with film usually using a 2k DI, that the same recommendations still apply. THX did use to apply the caveat that it was with good quality source material on the website.

No darts involved.
Thanks.

Was his name Henderson?

Was he upset for not being able to go to the beach?
anthonybuchanan is offline  
post #106 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 02:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 5,221
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 388 Post(s)
Liked: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonybuchanan View Post
Thanks.

Was his name Henderson?

Was he upset for not being able to go to the beach?
I'm trying to help you out here, but you can't even read.

Added to my ignore list...

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 #107 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 03:17 PM
Senior Member
 
anthonybuchanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
I'm trying to help you out here, but you can't even read.

Added to my ignore list...
No reason to get upset Gary.

I made it clear I don't belive in the approach from the standpoint of what it is meant to solve and how it was derived.

You can't "help you out" for someone that thinks it's all non useful information. I would bet a lot of money this organization has come up with some other stuff that I would fall in line with to the letter. Not this seating chart stuff though.

I would like to be in a room with Henderson to discuss how he arrived at where he did.i iam certain I could convince him to see things my way.

He would likely agree with me. However he would publish his seating chart anyway because as he would say,

"It's the one guideline we had not published before and they told me to do to add to our offerings".

I beg of you to NOT ignore me just for this little thing.

I will need you to "help me out" with something else later.
anthonybuchanan is offline  
post #108 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 05:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,966
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 415 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
They don’t need to tout 4k by telling you that you can sit 1.6 SH away. It is reported you could begin to see the benefits of 4k over 1080p on a 100” screen from 60 feet away.

If you want to sit 1.6 SH away that’s up to you. The image will look great that close just as it will from 2.5 SH away where a lot of people will sit.

If someone wants to sit 1.6 SH I think its fine if they are recommending everyone do that then that’s crazy because some guy might want to sit 1.2 SH away and that’s cool too.
I agree that 1.6 SH is a bit too close for my taste; I have settled on ~ 2.0 SH (1.8 for 16x9, and 2.2 for 2.35 pics--i.e., ~ 11 ft from a 6ft H 16x9 pic and 5ft H pic for 2.35).

I find this to be very immersive but not overwhelming and tiresome.
millerwill is offline  
post #109 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 10:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
nathan_h's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: O.A.S.I.S
Posts: 6,156
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 685 Post(s)
Liked: 350
I'm a fan of 2 heights from a 2.35:1 screen.

____________________

Current theater & gear: "Nathan's Theater in Search of....".
nathan_h is offline  
post #110 of 119 Old 04-15-2016, 11:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 399 Post(s)
Liked: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan_h View Post
I'm a fan of 2 heights from a 2.35:1 screen.
Yup... I'm right about there too. That would be 11' from my screen. My front row is at 10' and that's where I watch 2.35 from.
erkq is offline  
post #111 of 119 Old 05-16-2016, 04:25 PM
Member
 
rastuso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Older thread, but I was looking this up again, after a Facebook conversation.

In my low budget, high WAF theater, I sit about 8 feet from my 100" diagonal projected 1080p image. I think it's perfect. THX would tell you I should be 3 or 4 feet further back, which imho is CRAZY! Maybe there is a reason why there are now only a couple dozen THX commercial theaters left.

THe low viewing angle goes in absolute stark contrast to IMAX, which is supposed to be the ultimate viewing experience, right? Even the LieMAXs To meet the THX recommended viewing angle in a LieMAX theater, or the bigger screens in a modern multiplex, you'd be near the back row (hell, maybe back in the projection room), and of course then WAY too high. NO ONE who has a home theater would choose that. We're going to choose the 3rd or fourth row up from the wheelchair level that puts our eyes 1/3 of the way up the screen, with a very large viewing angle.

Why on Earth would I choose a much tighter one, perhaps half of that, at home? Yeah, if I stare at a static image on my screen, I can see pixels. But guess what, once Deadpool starts counting down bullets, I'm sure not seeing pixels.

I do this: Go to your favorite theater, sit in your favorite seat, and take a real close look at how the screen looks. If you wear glasses, they are a GREAT frame. See where the screen lies in respect to your frames. Most likely it fills them. Now go home, and sit at the THX distance from your screen. It won't even be close to filling up your frames.

THat brings me back to why I'm here. I saw yet another person bragging about a home theater on FB that has the seats ridiculously far from the screen, and too high. People will drop tens of thousands of dollars on a theater, and have a very sub par experience to the local Regal, and wonder what went wrong.

I really should design home theaters for a living. So many people get taken by dumbasses who have no idea what they're doing.

Jason
rastuso is offline  
post #112 of 119 Old 05-16-2016, 04:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 5,221
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 388 Post(s)
Liked: 210
You're sitting at roughly 2x screen height which is SMPTEs closest recommended, but that's about where I like to sit, albeit with a 2.35 screen rather than 16:9. For the aspect changing movies like TDK I'm at around 1.5xSH which is more like IMAX than normal cinema. I'm running a 2.35+IMAX set up rather than plain 16:9 which shows 2.35 movies smaller than 16:9 (wrong way round).

IMAX is very different to normal movies, and movies are shot differently to cater for it - the horizon line is very low and below center to prevent people looking up and getting neck ache due to the much closer seating distances and raked stadium seating arrangement. Normal SMPTE/THX recommendations are not designed for IMAX and that's why they don't apply there.

Don't give up your day job.

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 #113 of 119 Old 05-16-2016, 05:20 PM
Member
 
rastuso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
People who really want that top end experience sit closer. My whole point is people going to say they want a THX like room in their house, and they'll end up with seats 1.75 times the width from their screen, which is ridiculously far. Even when I see celebrity home theaters, I just laugh. ANd you know those cost at least 50 grand, then another 30 grand in sound equipment. ANd then a screen so small it's laughable.

I'm always amazed at the fact that almost all of them have the screens way too high. But, we live in a world where above the fireplace has become the position of choice, which is beyond dumb.

http://4rilla.blogspot.com/2009/01/p...ates-home.html

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/103653228896788264/

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/103653228896788222/

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/103653228896788105/

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/103653228896788068/

WOW, had to add this one:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/103653228896788078/

And these were NOT cheap theaters, but don't even come close to delivering the experience they should.

Jason
rastuso is offline  
post #114 of 119 Old 05-16-2016, 06:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 5,221
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 388 Post(s)
Liked: 210
I don't disagree.

I think the main problem is they don't come to avs...

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 #115 of 119 Old 05-16-2016, 06:04 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,966
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 415 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by rastuso View Post
Older thread, but I was looking this up again, after a Facebook conversation.

In my low budget, high WAF theater, I sit about 8 feet from my 100" diagonal projected 1080p image. I think it's perfect. THX would tell you I should be 3 or 4 feet further back, which imho is CRAZY! Maybe there is a reason why there are now only a couple dozen THX commercial theaters left.

THe low viewing angle goes in absolute stark contrast to IMAX, which is supposed to be the ultimate viewing experience, right? Even the LieMAXs To meet the THX recommended viewing angle in a LieMAX theater, or the bigger screens in a modern multiplex, you'd be near the back row (hell, maybe back in the projection room), and of course then WAY too high. NO ONE who has a home theater would choose that. We're going to choose the 3rd or fourth row up from the wheelchair level that puts our eyes 1/3 of the way up the screen, with a very large viewing angle.

Why on Earth would I choose a much tighter one, perhaps half of that, at home? Yeah, if I stare at a static image on my screen, I can see pixels. But guess what, once Deadpool starts counting down bullets, I'm sure not seeing pixels.

I do this: Go to your favorite theater, sit in your favorite seat, and take a real close look at how the screen looks. If you wear glasses, they are a GREAT frame. See where the screen lies in respect to your frames. Most likely it fills them. Now go home, and sit at the THX distance from your screen. It won't even be close to filling up your frames.

THat brings me back to why I'm here. I saw yet another person bragging about a home theater on FB that has the seats ridiculously far from the screen, and too high. People will drop tens of thousands of dollars on a theater, and have a very sub par experience to the local Regal, and wonder what went wrong.

I really should design home theaters for a living. So many people get taken by dumbasses who have no idea what they're doing.

Jason
I'm in complete agreement with you; I sit ~ 11 ft from a 6 ft H 16x9 screen. It is this immersive experience that is the most important aspect of HT, at least for me.
jjcook likes this.
millerwill is offline  
post #116 of 119 Old 05-16-2016, 06:19 PM
Member
 
rastuso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post
I'm in complete agreement with you; I sit ~ 11 ft from a 6 ft H 16x9 screen. It is this immersive experience that is the most important aspect of HT, at least for me.
6 feet high! Damn, that's nice. I'm low budget, so it's a 4x8 painted piece of Masonite
.

Jason
rastuso is offline  
post #117 of 119 Old 05-16-2016, 06:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,966
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 415 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by rastuso View Post
6 feet high! Damn, that's nice. I'm low budget, so it's a 4x8 painted piece of Masonite
.

Jason
Well, you've got something to look forward to when you're further along! (I just turned 75.) Only a few yrs ago did I go as large as my room can take, a 6ft H x 12ft W screen (6ft H for 16x9 pics, and 12ft W for 2.35), and size really does matter.
millerwill is offline  
post #118 of 119 Old 05-16-2016, 09:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 399 Post(s)
Liked: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by rastuso View Post
Older thread, but I was looking this up again, after a Facebook conversation.

In my low budget, high WAF theater, I sit about 8 feet from my 100" diagonal projected 1080p image. I think it's perfect. THX would tell you I should be 3 or 4 feet further back, which imho is CRAZY! Maybe there is a reason why there are now only a couple dozen THX commercial theaters left.

THe low viewing angle goes in absolute stark contrast to IMAX, which is supposed to be the ultimate viewing experience, right? Even the LieMAXs To meet the THX recommended viewing angle in a LieMAX theater, or the bigger screens in a modern multiplex, you'd be near the back row (hell, maybe back in the projection room), and of course then WAY too high. NO ONE who has a home theater would choose that. We're going to choose the 3rd or fourth row up from the wheelchair level that puts our eyes 1/3 of the way up the screen, with a very large viewing angle.

Why on Earth would I choose a much tighter one, perhaps half of that, at home? Yeah, if I stare at a static image on my screen, I can see pixels. But guess what, once Deadpool starts counting down bullets, I'm sure not seeing pixels.

I do this: Go to your favorite theater, sit in your favorite seat, and take a real close look at how the screen looks. If you wear glasses, they are a GREAT frame. See where the screen lies in respect to your frames. Most likely it fills them. Now go home, and sit at the THX distance from your screen. It won't even be close to filling up your frames.

THat brings me back to why I'm here. I saw yet another person bragging about a home theater on FB that has the seats ridiculously far from the screen, and too high. People will drop tens of thousands of dollars on a theater, and have a very sub par experience to the local Regal, and wonder what went wrong.

I really should design home theaters for a living. So many people get taken by dumbasses who have no idea what they're doing.

Jason
Before you sling "dumbass" labels around so freely, perhaps you should read what those THX specs actually are. They are the minimum angle of view. That is the reason you'd be in the back row in a commercial theater. That is exactly right. I sit 10' back from my 10' wide screen (145" diagonal). So as it turns out I think we're pretty much in agreement as to where to sit.
erkq is offline  
post #119 of 119 Unread Today, 03:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 19,643
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 692 Post(s)
Liked: 515
I thought this was an interesting poll

What is Your Viewing Distance Relative to Screen Height?

FS: SMX curved Scope Screen for $400 + shipping
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/218-di...een-700-a.html
FS: lightbox + 90 plus DS movie posters
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/211-ac...e-posters.html
rboster is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Screens



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