Chart Distance x Screen Size - Standards SMPTE and THX - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 63 Old 03-07-2008, 06:32 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: 12
Based on information obtained on the website:
http://myhometheater.homestead.com/v...alculator.html

I have made a graph with the distances and sizes of screens recommended by the standards SMPTE and THX.

The proportion of the following screen measures is 16:9. With 1080p content and the measures are the diagonal of the screen.

Differences between the standards:




SMPTE
http://www.smpte.org/

Maximum size recommended by standard SMPTE:




THX
http://www.thx.com/

Minimum size of screen recommended by THX:



Screen size recommended by THX:


Viewing Distance when Resolution becomes important:
Screen Size x Viewing Distance
480p
720p
1080p
1440p





Source: http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/

Peter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gary Contribution:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

This often comes up here and other places, and this diagram is gives a good idea of what viewing angles seating distances will give:



Using image height and width is preferable to diagonal measurements since they're a lot easier to work with, and removes confusion with screen aspect ratio - many people here have 2.35 screens.

THXs recommended viewing angle for HD 16:9 screens is 40 degrees, or 2.4 image heights. That also works for people with 2.35 screens who use an anamorphic lens, and may work with some pjs that zoom for scope.

The film industry often recommends 3 x IH for seating distance based on the crossover point between immersion (closer is considered better) and where image artefacts like film grain and projector induced issues become visible. With digital and good HD content that limitation is reduced, and is probably why THX recommend 2.4 x IH rather than 3. Sitting anywhere between 2 to 4 times the Image Height puts you within the usual range of a commercial theatre, and with 1080 displays, we're pretty much there with regards to resolution and image quality.

As Darin has pointed out, THX often gets misquoted but this video may be of interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBdmG...embedded#at=50

I also think it[s worth pointing out that the graphs that say where certain resolutions become noticeable doesn't mean you should sit there. In fact you should probably sit closer because those distances are where the Human eye can start to resolve those resolutions, but when comparing something like a 720 pj to a 1080 pj you might not be able to tell the difference until you get much closer.

Gary

Adoniram likes this.
Peter_ is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 63 Old 03-07-2008, 06:35 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: 12
I am seated at about 3 metres from the screen and the screen is 76 "wide.

The size of the screen was well on the standard SMPTE and I do not feel any discomfort visual.

I hope these graphics help.

Peter
Peter_ is offline  
post #3 of 63 Old 03-12-2008, 01:07 PM
Advanced Member
 
tomdahlberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Minneapolis MN
Posts: 791
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
They helped me, thanks for pointing me in the right direction!
tomdahlberg is offline  
post #4 of 63 Old 03-12-2008, 02:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tleavit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver, Wa
Posts: 1,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 34
hmm.. I basically 5 meters from 133" and have absolutely no problems with it nor anyone else. Even when playing games with mass movement like COD4

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" -Arthur C. Clarke
tleavit is offline  
post #5 of 63 Old 03-19-2008, 05:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kevivoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Peter,

Can you draw a cone showing the minimum and maximum screen sizes? I have 2 rows so how does 1 seat @ 5m help everyone?
kevivoe is offline  
post #6 of 63 Old 04-14-2008, 10:23 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: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevivoe View Post

Peter,

Can you draw a cone showing the minimum and maximum screen sizes? I have 2 rows so how does 1 seat @ 5m help everyone?

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




Peter
Peter_ is offline  
post #7 of 63 Old 04-14-2008, 11:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
circumstances's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 1,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
are the screen measurements given width or diagonal?
circumstances is offline  
post #8 of 63 Old 04-14-2008, 11:47 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: 12
Diagonal.
Peter_ is offline  
post #9 of 63 Old 04-14-2008, 12:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
circumstances's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 1,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i figured, thanks.

i'll be right around 11 1/2 feet from a 119" screen.
circumstances is offline  
post #10 of 63 Old 04-14-2008, 06:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
Varrius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Very nice and concise info, thanks Peter. This is one of the first things I looked into when researching installing a projector (and have yet to find anything this easy to follow and all in one place), so I'd recommend it for a sticky personally (although I might suggest attempting to convert the units to the american standards, as I believe that is what the majority of people using these forums are used to).
Varrius is offline  
post #11 of 63 Old 04-14-2008, 07:52 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: 12
Thanks Varrius.

It is a good hint. I will convert the units.

Peter.
Peter_ is offline  
post #12 of 63 Old 04-14-2008, 09:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
Varrius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Very nice! I had already done the conversion myself (and I'm glad to find out that I'm choosing right about the THX recommended screen size). I'm sure the conversion may help some others, I do hope that I was correct in assuming that many or most of the users here would prefer it in feet instead of meters.
Varrius is offline  
post #13 of 63 Old 04-20-2008, 10:12 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: 12
Picture of the distance of the screen to the ground.



It is about 1.97 feet from the ground and is very comfortable, especially to read the subtitles.

Before, it was about 3 feet, but I was uncomfortable.

Peter
Blue Rain likes this.
Peter_ is offline  
post #14 of 63 Old 04-21-2008, 05:44 AM
Member
 
crispybacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thank you Peter for creating that graph.

I am in the process of designing a 2.35:1 screen. Would you have any idea how the viewing distance would change going from 16:9 to 2.35:1?

A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
crispybacon is offline  
post #15 of 63 Old 04-21-2008, 10:24 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: 12
To change the proportion of 16:9 to 2.35:1, simply multiply the value of the diagonal of the screen by 0.9472

For example, the graph shows that to 13.12 feet, the diagonal of the screen in 16:9 must be 97".

Then multiply 97 by 0.9472 which equals approximately 92" in proportion 2.35:1

Peter.
Peter_ is offline  
post #16 of 63 Old 04-21-2008, 10:54 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_ View Post

Screen size recommended by THX:

Where did you get that from? If from the 36 degrees recommended by THX then that isn't a recommendation for the screen size you should have, it is a recommendation for the worst case viewing angle in a commercial theater. If a theater was built to that then almost every seat in the house would have a larger viewing angle and THX doesn't tell people where to sit in those theaters (at least from what I've seen). Also, when THX gave a recommendation at their booth at CEDIA last year they said it was based on testing to see where people see pixels with 1080p projectors. But, 1080p projectors vary and then the recommendation wouldn't apply when projectors go beyond 1080p or even to film now. So far I don't recall seeing or hearing anything about THX saying people shouldn't sitting closer than some viewing angle that wasn't based on limited pixel resolution, just stuff about not sitting further away than a certain viewing angle. Put another way, I haven't seen anything from THX limiting how close the closest seats can be in a commercial theater to get certified, only how far away the farthest seats can be.

Thanks for doing these graphs. I just know that the wording of the THX minimum and recommended specs for building a commercial theater have confused a lot of people and that even their later recommendation for home theater was based on limitations of current projectors. I also don't know if they tried using an anamorphic lens, which would generally make pixels less visible at the same viewing ratio.

--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 #17 of 63 Old 04-21-2008, 11:56 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: 12
Peter_ is offline  
post #18 of 63 Old 04-21-2008, 01:07 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Quote:

That supports just what I said:
Quote:


The angle subtended by the left and right edges of the Cinemascope image and the farthest seat in the auditorium is recommended to be 36 degrees. The minimum acceptable angle is 26 degrees for THX certified cinemas.

This gets paraphrased in other places and people often misconstrue this as THX recommending that people sit at a place where the viewing angle is 36 degrees. That is clearly not the case from what it says about the farthest seat in the theater (this is for commercial theaters with lots of seats). If a commercial theater is built to THX recommendations then the vast majority of people will be sitting in seats with viewing angles larger than 36 degrees.

It is misleading when people say "THX recommended viewing distance" since that 36 degree recommendation is to build a commercial theater so that the minimum viewing angle is 36 degrees, not a recommendation that people sit in the farthest seat if a theater was built to THX recommendations. However, they allow theaters to be THX certified if their minimum is 26 degrees. That is, a minimum for the minimum viewing angle instead of a recommended minimum viewing angle. In both cases it is for the minimum viewing angle in that theater (for multiple seats).

--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 #19 of 63 Old 04-21-2008, 01:27 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: 12
Darin,

Thanks for the explanation.

I'll edit this thread.

Peter.
Peter_ is offline  
post #20 of 63 Old 04-22-2008, 05:43 PM
Member
 
crispybacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_ View Post

To change the proportion of 16:9 to 2.35:1, simply multiply the value of the diagonal of the screen by 0.9472

For example, the graph shows that to 13.12 feet, the diagonal of the screen in 16:9 must be 97".

Then multiply 97 by 0.9472 which equals approximately 92" in proportion 2.35:1

Peter.

Appreciate the math. I'm planing a 130" diagonal so 130 x 0.9472=123" and I plan to sit at around 16' so I'm in the SMPTE maximum zone. I think I better do some testing just in case the screen is too big for the room.

Thanks for the info.

I'm sitting at roughly 180" so thats about x1.5 screen heights

A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
crispybacon is offline  
post #21 of 63 Old 04-22-2008, 06:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CADOBHuK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
A green sub?
CADOBHuK is offline  
post #22 of 63 Old 04-22-2008, 06:55 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: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by CADOBHuK View Post

A green sub?






Peter.
Peter_ is offline  
post #23 of 63 Old 04-25-2008, 06:58 AM
Senior Member
 
james.92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere between LA and Phoenix
Posts: 352
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Peter,

Just wanted to say thanks for your contributions to the projector forums here.

Your photos, graphs, etc. have really been insightful, even to a trigonometry challenged person like myself.
james.92 is offline  
post #24 of 63 Old 05-11-2008, 05:06 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: 12
Thanks James!

Peter.
Peter_ is offline  
post #25 of 63 Old 07-06-2008, 11:57 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: 12
New information added.





Source: http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/

Peter
Peter_ is offline  
post #26 of 63 Old 07-06-2008, 03:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tleavit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver, Wa
Posts: 1,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 34
nice find Peter

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" -Arthur C. Clarke
tleavit is offline  
post #27 of 63 Old 07-07-2008, 09:05 AM
Newbie
 
joelbct's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thank you Peter- I had an idea of these numbers, but it is very nice to see it all laid out in a concrete format. This should prove useful on future projects-
joelbct is offline  
post #28 of 63 Old 07-13-2011, 04:49 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: 12
I did think this thread could be fixed. Because these standards are not old. But I'm not a moderator to decide about it.

I'll be watching this thread and I'll trying to help as much as I can.

Peter
Peter_ is offline  
post #29 of 63 Old 07-14-2011, 01:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 41

This often comes up here and other places, and this diagram gives a good idea of what viewing angles certain seating distances will give:



Using image height is preferable to diagonal measurements since they're a lot easier to work with, and removes confusion with screen aspect ratio - many people here have 2.35 screens and using the height works for 16:9 and 2.35 when using an A lens.

THXs recommended viewing angle for HD 16:9 screens is 40 degrees, or 2.4 image heights. That also works for people with 2.35 screens who use an anamorphic lens, and may work with some pjs that zoom for scope. Sitting at 2.4 SH for 16:9 is 40 degrees and 52 degrees for 2.35 from the same seat.

The film industry used to recommend 3 x IH for seating distance based on the crossover point between immersion (closer is considered better) and where image artefacts like film grain and projector induced issues become visible. With digital and good HD content that limitation is reduced, and is probably why THX recommend 2.4 x IH (52 degrees) rather than 3 X IH. Sitting anywhere between 2 to 4 times the Image Height puts you within the usual range of a commercial theatre, and with 1080 displays, we're pretty much there with regards to resolution and image quality.

As Darin has pointed out, THX often gets misquoted so this video may be of interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBdmG...embedded#at=50

I also think it's worth pointing out that the graphs that say where certain resolutions become noticeable doesn't mean you should sit there. In fact you should probably sit closer because those distances are where the Human eye can start to resolve those resolutions, so sitting closer means those resolutions become more visible and detail visibly clearer. If you sit at the threshold of visibility of lets say 1080 and then comparing it to 720 from the same distance (all else being equal), you might not be able to tell the difference between the two until you get much closer.

Gary


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

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #30 of 63 Old 07-14-2011, 02:02 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: 12
I really appreciated your post (contribution) to this thread.

I'll quote your post in the first page.

Thank you,

Peter
Peter_ is offline  
Reply Screens

User Tag List

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


Forum Jump: 

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

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