Screen size vs Picture Quality - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 70 Old 10-09-2009, 04:59 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Murilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
So I am currently looking at a new screen. My current screen is 92 inches electric, my old screen was 106. I am noticing many on the forum are using much bigger screens.

When I moved from 92 to 106, I didnt notice any loss of size, mind you the 106 was mounted on the wall, and the 92 is on the ceiling and is 12 inches closer to my seating then my old wall screen since the drop down screen has to clear a plasma below it.

Tonight I zoomed my projector out to exactly 106 on the wall. And to be honest I still dont get it.

It seems once I hit 92 inches, I was very satisfied and felt immersed.

Sure the image was bigger, but I didnt really feel more immersed in the picture. Furthermore picture quality is highly important to me. From my seating artifacts showed up easier, it was less sharp, and of course not as bright.

Im just wondering before I decide if i am missing something? I really dont get the fascination with the bigger the better. Unless I was moving to a 120 inch screen then maybe I would notice a difference, but then I would also have to move further back from the screen.

I really feel increasing the size is a matter of diminishing returns once you hit a certain size. My seating ranges from 10-14 away from the screen.

Again is their something im missing, it seems nobody else on the forum shares my view on this.

I dont know if dalite makes custom sizes for the designer contour electrol or how much it costs, but a 96 inch would probably be exactly perfect.
Murilo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 70 Old 10-09-2009, 05:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Fabricator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: far sw sub chicago
Posts: 1,749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
personal preference . many guys will sacrifice detail for size. me, i compromise . i just installed my first pj. just to get a visual of what i'm dealing with, i went diy at 4'x8'. i think its a great compromise. but i am starting to think its a bit to small. a few more (only 2 so far) movies will give me a better feel.

chasing rattles ......

Pro8100 Cult member
Fabricator is offline  
post #3 of 70 Old 10-09-2009, 06:29 AM
 
floridapoolboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: florida
Posts: 3,482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
It's very common for folks to want a bigger screen after living with theirs for awhile. Back in the day screen door effect limited the screen sizes, but with Bluray 1080P we can sit much closer now. I still prefer being around 1.5 screen width away, which means my 13 foot seating distance equals a 120" diag. screen. Since I presently use a 96" screen I guess it's time to go bigger!
floridapoolboy is offline  
post #4 of 70 Old 10-09-2009, 06:48 AM
Advanced Member
 
Chadci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Beech Grove, IN
Posts: 928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I went big but now I need to go small again. Went from 92" > 106> 110> 119" and now I'll probably go between 92 - 100". We moved and before the 120" was perfect but now I'm only sitting 11' or so away.

My projector is a 720p Sanyo Z3. I'll upgrade sooner or later but because my TV and PJ both share the same source ( screen pulls down in front of the TV) I'll need to do both at the same time.

All that said, I have my projector zoomed in to somewhere between 92" - 100" and the picture got a little brighter (but I'm already working with a DaLite HP screen) but it got a lot cleaner and clearer. I'm finding myself getting sucked in even more with the smaller scale as I'm not finding all of the little annoyances as easily.
Chadci is offline  
post #5 of 70 Old 10-09-2009, 07:02 AM
 
floridapoolboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: florida
Posts: 3,482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
If you ever upgrade to a bright 1080P machine you'll want to go back to a larger screen. Sanyos are not known for brightness, and 720P will show artifacts much more readily than 1080P. At 11 feet a 106" screen would be perfect (for me at least)!
floridapoolboy is offline  
post #6 of 70 Old 10-09-2009, 07:33 AM
 
mjg100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridapoolboy View Post

If you ever upgrade to a bright 1080P machine you'll want to go back to a larger screen. Sanyos are not known for brightness, and 720P will show artifacts much more readily than 1080P. At 11 feet a 106" screen would be perfect (for me at least)!

I agree. You have to match up a screen with the projector. If you were to compare your 92" image to a 106" image using a brighter projector so that the foot lamberts were the same, then you would probably like the larger image. I view a 106" from 10'-6" and am pretty happy with it when viewing 16/9 AR material, but when viewing 2.40 AR material I wish it was bigger. Really need a bigger room for what I would like to do.
mjg100 is offline  
post #7 of 70 Old 10-09-2009, 08:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GeorgeAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,273
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 93
If you want to experience the best motion imaging technology and art have to offer, you should seek a foundation in imaging science not public forum discussions. There is much to learn here, but much to ignore as well. How do you know which is which? What is popular may not deliver the best quality. H. L. Mencken hit it on the head when he said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." There is also its companion: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." A masochist can be defined as someone who derives pleasure from the unpleasant. Selecting the correct creen size is primarily a function of seating distance and human visual acuity.

Many of the popular projectors in use these days lack sharpness due to misalignment of their three imager chips, poor signal processing, and/or inferior optics. A physically sharper image will be perceived as having greater contrast and depth. This is a function of how our brain interprets what our eyes register. The human visual system works fundamentally the same for every person. There can be minor variations between people, but film and video display standards have been founded in human factors research and proven over decades to serve us well.

As I have gotten older and studied more about what constitutes a reference image, my choice of seat in commercial cinemas has gotten farther away from the screen. I've become more aware of when an image is softer than intended. 'Immersion' for me has evolved into more of an appreciation of composition rather than size. I'm more in awe of a well produced and composed image than sheer size/field of view. The JVC 4K demo at CEDIA EXPO was impressive but I mistakenly sat in the front row at first. It was a good point to start at to examine pixel size, but I ended up enjoying the program more by standing behind the back row (it was not a deep room).

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
G. Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"
GeorgeAB is online now  
post #8 of 70 Old 10-09-2009, 06:41 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Murilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Good post.

Just so I am clear I had a 106, went to a 92, and didnt not miss the 106 at all. Again though the 106 was wall mounted, while the 92 is ceiling mounted, and is also 12 feet closer to my seating, because it has to clear a plasma below it.

Now that im looking for another screen I just dont miss the 106 at all. I think Picture quality to me will always be top priority before size up to a certain point. I was debating going with a 60 pioneer kuro and forgetting projectors altogether, but I couldnt do it, 60 was just way to small.

I have a benq w5000 currently, which is a fairly bright 1080p projector. I have the iris almost fully open and am using a high gain screen.

I brought some freinds over to see if im missing something, and they agreed in theory bigger always sounds better. But they also said the image was alot less sharp, and did not look as good blown up to 106. They thought 92 was big enough and looked better pq wise.

This is also dlp so its sharp.I was using zodiac and kill bill to test. But from 12 feet it lost alot of sharpness in my eyes. It felt bigger but again not more special or more immersed in the picture.

I actually felt positioning plays a much larger role in the above. Again my 92 screen actually felt a bit bigger, it is slightly above eye level coming from the ceiling and is closer, having it slightly above eye level also seemed to add a bigger feel to it. I just feel for me anyway 92 inches is a point where their is diminishing returns going any bigger.

Again i didnt really mean to start a debate, just wanted to get some opinions, its not often i buy new screens.
Murilo is offline  
post #9 of 70 Old 10-13-2009, 09:29 AM
Member
 
frugalhomeav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Oregon
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
When my wife and I saw The Dark Knight in IMAX I got hooked on being close to a huge screen. I got the biggest setup that made sense with the 1080P resolution. I sit about 11' back from a 120" screen, and it's great! Sometimes I wish it was even bigger. For me it's about being immersed, aurally and visually.

-Joel

http://www.frugalhomeav.com - Home Audio/Video Excellence on a Budget
frugalhomeav is offline  
post #10 of 70 Old 10-13-2009, 10:39 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 255
I chose an extra big screen with 4 way masking to vary the image size and one reason was the "bigger vs image quality" issue. Some sources handle being bigger than others.

But also, in general, I find there is a picture quality trade off between a larger projected image and a smaller one. Obviously the larger image is more immersive, which is awesome and why I can do up to a 125" wide image (from 11 feet).

At the same time there is no free lunch. I find that, assuming the same projector, zooming the image smaller brings a density, sharpness and punch to the image that
is lost as you zoom the image larger.

Now, one thing that seems to combat this "loss" to some degree is increasing the image brightness of the larger image. For instance, using a 3.0 gain Da Lite High Power screen can get back some of that "punch" and palpability in larger image sizes (or using a brighter projector). But, nonetheless, take that same projector and same screen and make the image smaller and you still see the comparable increase in apparent image quality, with the smaller image.

So I sort of go back and forth between Big and not-too-huge projected image, depending on what I want out of the experience. And, FWIW, at least in my experience with various projectors in my room, I've found a sort of sweet spot
for Hi Def material (e.g. Blu Ray) to be about 112" wide for CinemaScope films.
(Again, from my 11 to 11.5 ft viewing distance). That seems to split the difference nicely giving a very nice sense of immersion, but not straining the material enough to show it's warts and keeping some nice density and punch to the image.
R Harkness is online now  
post #11 of 70 Old 10-13-2009, 01:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
threed123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Troy, MI, USA
Posts: 2,471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 35
I have a 130" screen and sit back around 13-15 feet using an Optoma HD70 projector (720p), and HD images are eye-popping. Upscaled DVDs not so much, but really not noticeable since it looks a lot like movie theater film grain. I suspect Blu Ray movies would blow me away like HD TV does though. If I go 1080p with the newer brighter projectors, I would definitely go to 150" screen without hesitation. Sure you do a little head turning or eye flittering, but I think the immersion would be worth it. I'm thinking an HD20 or similar could handle it nicely.

Bob
threed123 is offline  
post #12 of 70 Old 10-13-2009, 06:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mikieson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,279
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
My diy sheetrock screen is 108" diagonal. I thought it was ok when I did it. BUT honestly I would love to go larger. I would like at least a 200" diagonal one. BUT im sure the picture quality would totally suffer.

OR WOULD IT???? I have the Sony VLP-AW10...What you think peeps...BIGGER or stay the same..
mikieson is offline  
post #13 of 70 Old 10-14-2009, 04:22 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Murilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Im also a little curious, how much screen size on 16:9 screens is lost for 2:35:1 movies, I measured my 92 diagonal at 80 diagonal for cinema scope movies, a loss of 12 inches is not to bad at all.
Murilo is offline  
post #14 of 70 Old 10-14-2009, 08:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
720p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,388
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I went from 70 > 100 > 133. Quality went down dramatically each time. Sitting distance remained the same. Lots of head movement/headache to watch now but have no regrets. I will upgrade to a 65" tv (50" currently) so 100" of projection won't cut it. If I want quality I turn on my tv. For projection I am not looking for quality but size and the bigger the better. Projection should look like a cinema to me not a large tv. You can get tvs over 100" (although quite pricey). Oh and you'll want blu-ray on a 1080p projector, dvds won't cut it if you want image similar to what you get in your local cinema.
720p is offline  
post #15 of 70 Old 10-14-2009, 02:23 PM
Member
 
frugalhomeav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Oregon
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Murilo - You lose about 25% of the screen height going from 16:9 (1.78 AR) to 2.35 AR.

720p - yes, your picture will start to look like garbage if you're not using 1080p media and equipment at these screen sizes. See my post here: http://www.frugalhomeav.com/why-you-...-1080p-display for a graph of the resolution you need for certain sizes at certain distances.

Mikieson - take a look at that same chart, it will tell you how big you could go. You'll also want to keep the brightness of your PJ in mind since it will likely decrease some as you make the image larger. Keep in mind though that the lens is more efficient as you zoom it out, so it will allow more light through.

http://www.frugalhomeav.com - Home Audio/Video Excellence on a Budget
frugalhomeav is offline  
post #16 of 70 Old 10-14-2009, 03:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chrisx510's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,587
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I sit 12ft from 126" screen..Love it! Picture quality is amazing and commercial theaters can't compete with my JVC projector.. I wish I had the room to go bigger.. 150" would be awesome or even 200".. Maybe one day!

My First Home Theater

300 Blu-Rays, 150 DVD's loaded in my Movie Server!

Thanks AVS for making me addicted to this hobby!
Chrisx510 is offline  
post #17 of 70 Old 10-14-2009, 05:34 PM
Newbie
 
bouchary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Help: I need 120" screen. I will use the new Panny EA4000. Pj at 14' and the sitting at 12'. I dont know if i need a CURVED PERMANENT Screen
or just a 9 x 16 PERMANENT Screen. What is the best screen.
bouchary is offline  
post #18 of 70 Old 10-14-2009, 06:04 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Murilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I really disagree about projectors being about size not quality.

My projector while I like a large picture also needs to look great. Picture quality is still highly important. I am completely taken out of a movie, no matter how big it is, if the picture is showing artifacts, soft picture, dim. Also a 92 inch screen is not a big tv to me, i dont think any tv's on the market come in that size. I think your maybe refering to panasonic 104 inch plasma, i dont even know if those are for sale through regular distribution channels, those are specifically available through special channels and I think I remember reading they are targeted toward television production companies and media rooms, not the home market. I dont know of any tv's available for the home market at 92 inches, I think 82 inches might be the biggest I seen by mitsubishi available to the home market, thats still 10 inches smaller then my screen diagonal. The panasonic is also just a prototype. I believe philips and sharp also had 100 plus inch screens, again not available to the home market they stated for a number of years yet. So large tv's like you describe are out of the question, no tv's readily available come in that size.

I tested the 106 vs 92 again, and the 106 just had noitceably less depth and punch then the 106, again I guess its a matter of priority, is size more important then quality.

I only watch blue-ray and have a 1080p projector, and still going bigger shows more flaws in many blue-ray transfers, and to be honest their is not many good transfers. Look at the teir ranking. Of course this all depends on your seating distance. But i still see many people with 120 inch screens sitting 11 feet away.

In response to george, I agree with your post but this maybe in line with the "what is happening to this portion of the forum" post in the high end projector section.

I remember when i joined this forum picture quality was of the utmost importance in all aspects, it seems to be changing, people will sacrifice picture quality, for a bigger picture. This is an av science forum.

Again I totally understand the issue comparing tv's to projector screen, the kuro was amazing, but was just to small, again though at certain sizes I just feel going to big is to much, to much loss of picture quality and diminishing returns. Going above 96, I noticed a bigger picture but loss in quality, i just was not willing to sacrifice.

If i was to increase my projector size, I would need studios to really improve the quality of their transfers.
Murilo is offline  
post #19 of 70 Old 10-14-2009, 07:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chrisx510's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,587
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Murilo what projector are you using?

My First Home Theater

300 Blu-Rays, 150 DVD's loaded in my Movie Server!

Thanks AVS for making me addicted to this hobby!
Chrisx510 is offline  
post #20 of 70 Old 10-14-2009, 07:46 PM
 
mjg100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I under stand your point if you are talking about a 120" screen, but any good projector should provide a good 106" image. In 2003 a 106" image was considered big and few digital projectors would have provided a great image at that size. Now days a lot of projectors can provide a bright sharp image at that size. My Marantz VP12S4 is only 720P, but it has one of the best lenses on the market and it throws a very good image at 106" My Planar PD7130, also 720P gives an even better image, not as sharp as the Marantz, but it has better blacks due to the room even though the Marantz is the superior projector. The Planar is in an all black dedicated room while the Marantz is in a light colored room. The room can make a huge difference in the image, not with sharpness, but with contrast. I think darkening your walls and ceiling would make the biggest improvement in your image. Benq did a software update for the W5000. Did yours come with the update or have you updated the software?
mjg100 is offline  
post #21 of 70 Old 10-14-2009, 07:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
K-Spaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridapoolboy View Post

At 11 feet a 106" screen would be perfect (for me at least)!

I find this a really good spot as well. but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjg100 View Post

I view a 106" from 10'-6" and am pretty happy with it when viewing 16/9 AR material, but when viewing 2.40 AR material I wish it was bigger. Really need a bigger room for what I would like to do.

I'm in the same boat there. yea, 16:9 material seems really nice, but when I hit 2.3x material, I really do wish the image was larger. maybe if I knew what it looked like when larger and IF it looses quality, I might say that what I have is fine. But as it stands, I 'think' I'd prefer a larger screen for widescreen material.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murilo View Post

I remember when i joined this forum picture quality was of the utmost importance in all aspects, it seems to be changing, people will sacrifice picture quality, for a bigger picture. This is an av science forum.

I don't think I've seen a thread on this forum I agree with more of the views in.

Murilo, I'm not sure there's a huge number of folks willing to give up quality for size, but probably they are a vocal group, so they look like a majority. I suppose if I had a 130" screen I'd probably make it a point to say it more too! Hehe.
K-Spaz is offline  
post #22 of 70 Old 10-14-2009, 08:33 PM
Member
 
b4ward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Going through the exact same issue. Cracked open my new Viewsonic PRO8100, threw a white quilt on the wall (couldn't find a white sheet), and measured for a 100" and 106" diag screen. I was shocked. I thought those measurements would be too much, and it wasn't enough. I am now looking at 110" screen. I was afraid sitting 9' away would give me a headache but I was comfortable with the big image.

The Viewsonic PRO8100, fired at a quilt, no adjustments, totally kicked ass.
b4ward is offline  
post #23 of 70 Old 10-15-2009, 04:51 AM
 
mjg100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Spaz View Post

I find this a really good spot as well. but...


I'm in the same boat there. yea, 16:9 material seems really nice, but when I hit 2.3x material, I really do wish the image was larger. maybe if I knew what it looked like when larger and IF it looses quality, I might say that what I have is fine. But as it stands, I 'think' I'd prefer a larger screen for widescreen material.


I don't think I've seen a thread on this forum I agree with more of the views in.

Murilo, I'm not sure there's a huge number of folks willing to give up quality for size, but probably they are a vocal group, so they look like a majority. I suppose if I had a 130" screen I'd probably make it a point to say it more too! Hehe.

I can tell you what help with me. I installed adjustable horizontal masking on my 106" for scope movies (no more gray bars) and it improved the experience a lot. Now that it is just image and blackness it is a lot more immersive.
mjg100 is offline  
post #24 of 70 Old 10-16-2009, 03:10 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Murilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
My w5000 does have the latest update. I agree, the picture looks really good yet at 106 and is bigger, but my point is it still had alot more punch, and sharpness, and looked better at 92. While I still felt immersed in the picture and it was not to small. Going less I would probably find the image to small. I guess the issue is more people are willing to give up pq for size, then i am. AGain 106 it still looked very good, and was bigger, but the scenes just noticeably looked less sharp, and less punch. And these are on nearly perfect transfers.

I guess i just dont get the go bigger, go bigger feelings while the picture quality falls, again depending on your seating distance.

And again its not just the projector, look at the tier rankings in the blue ray forum. I couldnt even imagine watching a sub part transfrer on a larger screen. If their were alot of excellent transfers, I would say go bigger, i would be on board with all of you. But their are not alot. Their is alot of crappy edge enhancement, halos, dnr, and digital noise. blue rays , that shows up even more. It must drive some of you crazy. The guys in the blue ray forum with 50-60 inch plasmas go nuts when they see this on their displays.
Murilo is offline  
post #25 of 70 Old 10-16-2009, 06:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fleaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,577
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Good subject.

My only question is why so much talk about actual screen sizes when the only(?) relative thing that really matters is screen width to viewing distances, i.e 1.5 times screen width.

A 70" wide screen @ x1.5 distance=105" (8.75 feet) viewing distance should have the same detail/immersion as a 87" wide screen @ x1.5 distance=130.5" (10.87 ft), this assuming you can keep the brightness the same, say low power for small screen and high power for large screen.

No?
fleaman is offline  
post #26 of 70 Old 10-16-2009, 06:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
mike2060's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think a 200" wide screen at 300" distance is more immersive than a 70" screen at 105".
mike2060 is offline  
post #27 of 70 Old 10-17-2009, 12:07 AM
Senior Member
 
nirvy111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Once I got into the 150" to 200" diagonal range it's easier to be swayed towards image size preference over image quality but with smaller sizes I found it to be the other way round, not sure why though.
nirvy111 is offline  
post #28 of 70 Old 10-17-2009, 01:49 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Murilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Fleaman, agreed , thats why Im constantly bringing up viewing distance.

Im all for the huge screens at proper viewing distance. Im not so stoked on the huge screens a few feet away.

Again im between 10-14 feet away.

I dont mean to discredit people on this thread, your all very knowledgeable, and opinions very important.

Today I asked my kids and they said go bigger!

I asked a few other freinds, and the first thing they said is, wont the picture quality come down? This is coming from a 26 year old man, who still uses a 4:3 crt tv.

So you would expect on the avscience forum, im more then shocked about this bigger is better attitude.

Again I dont know what blue rays you view, but their is so many terrible blue ray transfers out their.

Nothing takes me out of a movie more then picture quality flaws. Thats why Im shocked at the people who still want bigger from only a few feet away.

I would rather have a good looking picture a bit smaller, then a large picture, with poor quality, showing all the films flaws.

I think I would probably have some people agree with me on other forums (blue-ray) but the projector/screen forum, I always felt held picture quality as its most important aspect.

Im sorry Im just really perplexed, Im only 25 years old myself, but maybe its a changing of the times. Size before quality.

My point is you want immersion, but doesnt ugly looking poor quality, overprocessed, dnr, edge enhanced crap, blown up on a big screen take you out of a movie?

Again Im all for big screens at proper viewing distance, but this forum seems to be going in the direction of just wanting a bigger picture, no matter how bad it looks. Im just confused by it. I expect that from the majority of the public who also put their tv's in torch mode, but for avscience forum, with knowledgable members who spend hundreds of dollars just to have their projectors isf calibrated, i find it odd that people here will still go bigger just for the sake of going big.

I would cringe if I spent money on my isf calibrated projector to look great, and then completely ruin it by getting the biggest screen i can, blowing the picture up, and sitting a few feet away, it kind of defeats the purpose does it not?
Murilo is offline  
post #29 of 70 Old 10-17-2009, 07:00 AM
 
floridapoolboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: florida
Posts: 3,482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
As long as the prime viewing position is at 1.5 screen width you can't go wrong. Closer or farther than that is personal preference, that's why people sit in front or in the back in movie theaters!
floridapoolboy is offline  
post #30 of 70 Old 10-17-2009, 07:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaman View Post

Good subject.

My only question is why so much talk about actual screen sizes when the only(?) relative thing that really matters is screen width to viewing distances, i.e 1.5 times screen width.

A 70" wide screen @ x1.5 distance=105" (8.75 feet) viewing distance should have the same detail/immersion as a 87" wide screen @ x1.5 distance=130.5" (10.87 ft), this assuming you can keep the brightness the same, say low power for small screen and high power for large screen.

No?

Actually: No.

The issue of screen size is often...well...about image size. People move to front projection generally for a larger image. I was sick of watching sci-fi movies and seeing things like space ships reduced from the dramatic impact of the cinema to toy-size figurine sizes on my TV set (plasma). Going front projection restored a sense of size and authority to the image that doesn't come with a smaller image.

You can not get this simply from moving closer to an image, because viewing distance to image width, or viewing angle, is not the only way we perceive image size. If that weren't the case, we would all be perpetually confused about the size of objects as we moved closer or further from them.
Luckily our brains use various cues to establish the size of objects, not simply on viewing angle. That's why if you put a DVD of Star Wars on your computer monitor and move close, your brain won't be confused in to thinking you are now watching a massive screen, or massive objects.
Your brain will tell you "I'm closer to a small object."

That's why actual big size has the effect it does.

I had originally planned on a 65" plasma, which I truly loved. But no matter how I situated my self to watch the image, it would not produce the feeling of cinematic size of a front projection system, even if I maintained the same viewing angles. The brain just recognizes when an image is actually smaller. Which is why I switched to front projection....and why my brother who sits fairly close to his rear projection TV still comes over to my house and is blown away by the difference of the experience.

Cheers,
R Harkness is online now  
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