how far to sit from screen - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 29 Old 06-02-2009, 03:45 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
kitkat99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
j
kitkat99 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 29 Old 06-02-2009, 03:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
notoriousmatty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 717
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You make too many threads of things easily found by doing a little reading. You have made it as far as this website so I dont think your a complete idiot. I dont think.
notoriousmatty is offline  
post #3 of 29 Old 06-02-2009, 06:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 442
Ask your questions in one thread please. There is no right answer, You should far enough away so you can see the whole screen without having to move your head. Moreover and this depends on how good your eyes are, and far enough away so you don`t see any individual pixels or in another words any screen door feffect.

Mark Haflich

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #4 of 29 Old 06-02-2009, 06:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rsbeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Start around 1.5 X Screen Width and adjust your seating forward or back to your taste.
rsbeck is offline  
post #5 of 29 Old 06-02-2009, 09:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 442
Good advice. Sometimes the room size makes one sit a little too close given that most want a reallly big screen. Its better to size the screen for your seating distance. With 1080p, the absolute limit might be 1.25 the screen width. But things will be more enjoyable and relaxing in the long rum to go about 1.65.

Mark Haflich

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #6 of 29 Old 06-04-2009, 09:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hd_newbie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Metro DC
Posts: 2,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
There are many different online calculators, which sometimes show conflicting results. I would personally follow THX guidelines:

http://www.thx.com/home/setup/display.html
hd_newbie is offline  
post #7 of 29 Old 06-04-2009, 09:51 AM
Member
 
RooRwOrks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
For 1080p resolution in 2.35:1 format you can go as large as 52.39deg horizontal viewing angle without being able to identify individual pixels. This is based off of having 20/20 vision. By calculating this, you will give yourself a constant image height.
RooRwOrks is offline  
post #8 of 29 Old 06-04-2009, 12:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 442
To me, just as important is to see the whole screen without having to swivel one's head.

Mark Haflich

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #9 of 29 Old 06-04-2009, 05:09 PM
Member
 
dcouzin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
People who go to movie theaters choose a seat from the first row to the last row. Unless the theater is unusually crowded, that's where they like to sit. Their viewing distances vary by about a factor of 4. Even among people I regard as movie connoisseurs, viewing distances vary by more than a factor of 2. Why should movie viewing tastes be greatly different in home theaters? One possible difference is the binocular effect, which provides screen distance information at home theater distances but not at movie theater distances. Another possible difference is pixilation in the home theater. (It's not as much fun to see pixilation as to see movie graininess.)

mark haflich reports that he doesn't like having to swivel his head to see the screen. Normally eyeballs swiveling in their sockets can handle any screen angle of view. Does mark haflich wear small eyeglasses?

I am trying to figure out why I sit in the back row of movie theaters and why I prefer 4:3 format. The eyeball swiveling is greatly reduced at this viewing angle of about 15 deg. The full fovea covers about 5 deg. The brain accumulates a detailed scene through the jumpy swivels of the eyeball, planting the fovea here and there. In a movie, or other active scene, things might be moving and changing all over simultaneously, so the accumulation of detail by saccadic snapshots can't work fast enough. By sitting very far back the maximum detail level is reduced but the minimum detail level is increased. We back row sitters prefer to take in the whole frame nearly at once.

I find the individual differences among movie viewer seating preferences more interesting than the inane guidelines for ideal seating.
dcouzin is offline  
post #10 of 29 Old 06-04-2009, 07:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 38
There is indeed a wide variety of personal pref. For me, ~ 1.3 SW is ideal, but my wife likes it a it further back.
millerwill is online now  
post #11 of 29 Old 06-04-2009, 07:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 442
Actually Mark Haflich has Myesthenia Gravis. Fortunately it is limited to his eyes which don`t move horizontally very well. So its Ocular MG thank God. But regardless whether my eyes would track, I still prefer being able to take in the whole screen. without eye or head movement.

It is all mostly preference. Sit close, sit in the middle, sit back. Unfortunately unlike a large movie hall venue, our desire for a really really big screen, bigger that my friends HT, diictates for our small rooms, sitting fairly close. If thats what you like, its fine and there is nothing wrong at sitting wherever you like. You can even sit behind the screen if you like.

Mark Haflich

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #12 of 29 Old 06-05-2009, 05:23 AM
Member
 
dcouzin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
My own screen is 52" wide and the room allows me to sit 24' away, but I don't sit that far. At that distance too much detail is invisible -- too many pixels wasted. And even at 24' some eye motion is needed to take in the whole picture. So there is tradeoff between the two desiderata: maximum detail (in more or less static scenes) and minimum detail (in highly active sceens).

We back row viewers who like to take in the whole picture at all instants, to appreciate the composition (as it were), might be missing yet another aspect of the movie. If the filmmaker intends a viewer at ~1.5 x screenwidth, then the filmmaker intends to control (to some degree) what the viewer notices when. At ~1.5 x screenwidth, the viewer is immersed in the image, and that immersion can be aesthetically important. Aversion to visual immersion (and to being controlled) might be part of our preference for greater viewing distance.

I live with a filmmaker. During editing she frequently appraises the work by projecting it onto the 52" screen and viewing it from about 6'. Editing is especially dependent on visual angle since how each new shot is taken in depends on where the foveal view resides at the end of the old shot.
dcouzin is offline  
post #13 of 29 Old 06-05-2009, 05:34 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 442
Sitting 24 ft away from a 52 inch wide screen. that would be about 5 1\\1 times screen width. Surely one can see the whole screen with out eye movement that far away? Your screen can1t be only 52 inches wide. Thats the size of what say a 60 inch plasma.

Mark Haflich

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #14 of 29 Old 06-05-2009, 07:52 PM
Member
 
dcouzin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
The fovea is the part of the retina with good color vision. It covers just 5 deg field of view. The 52" wide 4:3 screen subtends almost 13 deg at 24'. So even at that distance it's not possible to see the whole screen with good color and good detail without eye movements. (Best detail is in 1 deg at the center of the fovea.)

There's a 12"X16" painting on the wall about 7' away. At first it seems easy to take it all in view, with the frame too. But as I stare at the center the details in the corners fade and need to be revived by means of eye movements. Approximately 5 deg foveal view confirmed.
dcouzin is offline  
post #15 of 29 Old 07-15-2009, 07:40 AM
Senior Member
 
Victor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: North Potomac, MD, USA
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The seating distance is matter of personal taste. I prefer to sit about 12' from 120" screen. Don't see any pixels on 1080 material. But certainly viewing entire image involves moving my eyes/head which contribute in more realistic experience then using THX recommendations. I chose this distance as a minimal comfortable distance to the screen.
Victor is offline  
post #16 of 29 Old 07-15-2009, 08:34 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,305
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor View Post

The seating distance is matter of personal taste.material. But certainly viewing entire image involves moving my eyes/head which contribute in more realistic experience then using THX recommendations. I chose this distance as a minimal comfortable distance to the screen.

I agree. I sit at the SMPTE minimum and I love it for immersion (2x height)

Art


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #17 of 29 Old 07-15-2009, 10:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GeorgeAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Many good points have been made. The type of display has a definite impact on the visibility of pixels. A more sharply defined pixel grid, such as a single chip DLP with good optics, will reveal individual pixels more readily than a poorly aligned three chip technology. LCoS displays have much less gap between pixels but are three chip displays with typically poor chip convergence. Their pixels overlap and smear the finest definition as a result. This can mask chromatic aberration to some degree, but also can emulate the amorphous character of film images. A brighter image will reveal pixel definition more readily as well.

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 #18 of 29 Old 07-15-2009, 10:26 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeAB View Post

... LCoS displays have much less gap between pixels but are three chip displays with typically poor chip convergence. Their pixels overlap and smear the finest definition as a result. ...

I don't understand what you mean by 'poor convergence' etc. When I go up to the screen to focus (on my RS20), I see the pixels clearly defined, with no color fringing, over the whole screen. What else is there to sharpness, detail?
millerwill is online now  
post #19 of 29 Old 07-15-2009, 10:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 41
I've tried and prefer 2.4 x screen height though I've sat closer with no problems (probably as close as Art sits). Even at 2.4 x sh you should only have to allow for eye movements (saccades) and not head movements to take in the image.

I don't think many people realise just how close they are sitting when they see a movie at a commercial theater. I often see people respond in amazement when you mention that 1 x the screen width of a scope movie is approximately in the geometric center of the seating in a commercial theater, and the back row may be just 1.5 x sw away. I also find from experience that commercial specs work well in the home (especially now that we have 1080), so using them as a guide may help some people decide.

If you sit at 2.4 x the screen height for a CIH set up that will be a 40 degree viewing angle for 16:9 (THX actually recommend this for HDTV displays) and around 53 degrees for scope (THXs optimal for scope).

But at the end of the day it's down to individual preference. I think if people realise they can sit as close as they can with our current displays they might enjoy a more immersive home theater experience.

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 #20 of 29 Old 07-15-2009, 10:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
PioManiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 36
My eyes adjusted to my 120" screen at 10'-6" viewing distance within a couple weeks.
At 1.2 screen widths, its the perfect seating distance for me when watching 2.35:1 content
(my 16:9 120" Diagonal screen is about 8'-9" wide x 1.2 = 10'-6")



..but at the theater, I'm usually 1 or 2 rows back from dead center

The prime seats for "most" are from 1.1 to 1.5 screen widths, and are usually the first ones to fill up at every movie I've been to in a commercial theater.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

...When a Kuro plasma still isnt enough, make your movie Experience Larger than Life with a Projector!
PioManiac is offline  
post #21 of 29 Old 07-15-2009, 12:35 PM
Member
 
gvera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montevideo, Uruguay
Posts: 114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I just want to add another subject to the discussion.
I live in a spanish speaking country and 90% of the movies are watched with subtitles.
It is very difficult to keep track of the movie and read the subtitles if you seat too close to the screen.
For a 16:9 screen seating closer than 3 heighs (or 1.7 withs) starts too many up and down eye movement, as most spanish subtitles are placed partially or completely over the bottom black bar.
gvera is offline  
post #22 of 29 Old 07-15-2009, 12:38 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'm at about 12 1/2 feet back from my 120" screen. Quick math says that's about 1.32 times the width.

I could go bigger from this seating distance (if i had the room) =)
circumstances is offline  
post #23 of 29 Old 07-15-2009, 01:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
orion456's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 641
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvera View Post

I just want to add another subject to the discussion.
I live in a spanish speaking country and 90% of the movies are watched with subtitles.
It is very difficult to keep track of the movie and read the subtitles if you seat too close to the screen.
For a 16:9 screen seating closer than 3 heighs (or 1.7 withs) starts too many up and down eye movement, as most spanish subtitles are placed partially or completely over the bottom black bar.

I prefer the new method of subtitle where the words are placed next to the person speaking so you don't have to miss the movie as you constantly look down. At first I thought it would destroy the movie by blocking out part of the scene, but the ability to keep my eyes on the screen where the action is happening is a big plus.

I sit 1.3x but my wife likes it further back.
orion456 is offline  
post #24 of 29 Old 07-15-2009, 01:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my home theater ( when I'm not rock climbing, cycling or kayaking ) - Sacramento CA area
Posts: 4,984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 257
Quote:
The prime seats for "most" are from 1.1 to 1.5 screen widths, and are usually the first ones to fill up at every movie I've been to in a commercial theater.

We sit about 1.25 screen widths from our 118" wide 2.35:1 screen, and about 1.35 screen widths from our 106" wide 16:9 screen. It seems about perfect with 1080p material.

Craig Peer, AV Science Sales. Direct Line - 585-671-2972
I'm available 8:30am - 4:30pm PST, Monday - Friday Email me at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes, we sell Home Theater gear right here at AVS !!
JVC, Sony, Epson, DPI, SV Sound, Martin Logan, RBH, Klipsch, and many more!
Craig Peer is offline  
post #25 of 29 Old 07-15-2009, 01:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by orion456 View Post

I sit 1.3x but my wife likes it further back.

Identical for me (12 ft from 110" wide screen); wife ~ 1.5 ft further back.
millerwill is online now  
post #26 of 29 Old 07-15-2009, 02:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,979
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 321
I've found my preference for the size of an image varies with my mood, with the type of content I'm watching, with the source quality etc.

My room is designed for the option of images up to 124" wide and 62" tall, from a seating distance of about 11.5 feet.

Some source content can be blown up huge and still look great (like lots of HD material). Some looks cruddy blown up to the same size (some DVD). Some movies are wonderful and enveloping at the largest size, others can almost be nauseating (e.g. shaky-cam/fast cut movies). Sometimes I feel like an IMAX vibe, for instance if I put on Planet Earth in HD. Or sometimes I feel it's overwhelming for other content and make the size smaller.

And there is always a trade-off depending on the image size. The smaller the image the sharper, more dense and realistically "punchy" the image becomes. Make the image bigger and it becomes more immersive and cinematic feeling, but also loses some of the punchiness and density of a smaller projected image.

So in my case I've chosen the biggest screen I can fit, with automated 4 way masking to alter the screen size as I require.

ETA: There's also the acclimatization effect one might consider. As most of us here have experienced, you get acclimatized to a screen size pretty quickly. A display that seemed really big last month, once you've gotten used to it, seems not so big after a while. I started off thinking a 93" diagonal image was plenty big. And 105" wide was great for scope movies. Once I got used to projecting larger sizes on my wall those seemed puny. At one point I had the image as big as the projector would
go on the wall which was 124" (for scope movies). It felt really huge and I thought I wouldn't even want to watch movies that big very often. Then when I was at Mrlittlejeans' house testing out the JVC RS20 projector on his screen, he had I believe a 127" wide screen, viewed from even closer than my viewing distance. We watched some content like that and it seemed excellent. When we zoomed down to my screen size it was suddenly less impressive.

That happens to be another issue that I'm hoping to combat with my variable screen size. I'll be experiencing a variety of image sizes (including a variety of scope widths) so it will help keep the "wow" factor a little more special when I make the image really big.

Rich H


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R Harkness is offline  
post #27 of 29 Old 07-15-2009, 03:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PioManiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Great points Rich

Watching Planet Earth or an HD concert on BD/HD DVD has a real IMAX feel to it on my 16:9 screen
However full screen 1.85:1 movies with a lot of fast moving content is overwhelming sometimes.

Prime example is Cloverfield with its handycam motion in 1.85:1 had me ready to hurl occasionally.

Resolution/motion hasn't been as much of an issue for me at all for 2.35:1 movies yet,
in fact Star Wars, even upconverted old SD DVD, is nothing less than Spectacular
Right from the opening scene it totally had me floored, totally immersed.

Revenge of the Sith upconverted to 1080p on my PS3,
Epson 1080UB at 120" (9' wide) viewing distance 10'-6"


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

...When a Kuro plasma still isnt enough, make your movie Experience Larger than Life with a Projector!
PioManiac is offline  
post #28 of 29 Old 07-15-2009, 03:31 PM
Advanced Member
 
andrewfee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 785
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I find myself moving closer and closer to my screen as time goes on. I have a 118″ 16:9 Carada Precision screen (the largest I could fitit's less than half an inch from the walls on either side!) and often find myself sitting around 7.5′ back from it with 2.37:1 content.

I hadn't really been going by any seating distance guides, but that works out as 1.5x the screen height, though it's more like 2x the image height. Any closer than that and I don't think I'd really be able to take in the whole image at once.

This is only with Blu-ray of course and I sit a little further back with 16:9 content. (probably keeping to about 2H without realising it) With lower quality sources like DVD I tend to sit even further backmore like 2.5-3H.


Convergence hasn't been too much of an issue for me, or the visibility of the pixel structure. I find that Sony's 0.1px convergence adjustments do a great job correcting for misconvergence with video content.

As for the visibility of the pixel structure, well I can only get back about 14′ in this room and even then I can still see it if I'm looking, so sitting closer doesn't bother me.



The things that do bother me though is that the plane of focus doesn't seem to be quite parallel to the screen in my setup. I'll be readjusting things soon anyway, but it seems that one side of the image is slightly off focus from the other even though the edges of the image are more or less perfectly aligned with the screen. This is only very slight mind youno-one else has noticed it, even when I've pointed it out. I'm hoping this is just a slight misalignment and not a side effect of using lens shift.

Another issue is that the lens used in the HW10 seems to expand or contract with heat, and so it shifts in/out of focus over time. I have found that if I enable the high cooling mode and wait about an hour before focusing it, things seem relatively stable for as long as I leave it on afterwards though. Since doing that it hasn't really bothered me past the initial 20-30 minute warm-up. I guess they expected people to be sitting far enough back that they wouldn't notice.


My biggest issue is motion handling really though. It's exaggerated by the seating distance of course, but even 14′ back it bothers me. Current projector technology just isn't very good at motion handling, and 24fps really isn't enough for the speeds a lot of directors are moving the cameras at these days.



So it's all about compromises and preferences really, at least until we get scanning laser projectors that no longer require focus or have pixel gaps

EDIT: And distance should be measured in image heights, not widths. Height matters much more. (if it wasn't for the fact that I'd have had a smaller image with 16:9, I'd have gone with a CIH setup here to have a fixed seating distance)
andrewfee is offline  
post #29 of 29 Old 07-15-2009, 04:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Elkhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm sitting 12 feet 8 inches (152") from a 159" 16:9 screen as I type this.
Elkhunter is offline  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

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