Real-world difference between a bigger screen vs sitting closer? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 70 Old 09-11-2013, 08:53 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Assuming the viewing angle is the same, i.e. the screen takes up the exact same portion of your field of view, what is the difference between a larger screen and sitting closer to a smaller one? Assuming of course that multiple rows of seating are not an issue, etc.

The smaller screen will be brighter. Anything else? I assume sharpness and pixel visibility would be the same since they will trade-off between size and distance. What's the downside to sitting closer to a smaller screen, again assuming that seating etc for multiple viewers is not negatively affected?
curttard is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 70 Old 09-11-2013, 09:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Noah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 1,452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Nearsighted viewers will appreciate a smaller and closer screen.
Noah is offline  
post #3 of 70 Old 09-11-2013, 10:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,070
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 288 Post(s)
Liked: 215
It really depends on how small of screen we're talking about. PPI (pixels per inch) come into play as you get smaller and smaller. For instance, my HTC One smartphone has a 4.7" 1080p screen and the PPI is something like 450. With the visual acuity of humans there is no way we can see pixel structure even if our eyes are pressed up to the screen. So even if the screen was close enough to my head taking up the same field of view I don't think the experience is the same as a much larger screen taking up the same field of view. The same could be said for something like a 40" flat screen. I don't think the experience is the same as a much larger screen taking up the same field of view. Our eyes don't work in a linear fashion like that. As the screen gets larger and we can afford to sit farther back the experience becomes much more comfortable (better) even though our field of vision is the same.

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

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Seegs108 is online now  
post #4 of 70 Old 09-11-2013, 10:27 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Your example of pixel density actually makes the smaller screen sound more appealing, since we typically don't want to see pixel structure.

I would think the difference with a 40" flat screen (or phone/tablet screen) would be accounted for by other things than just the size. For one, you could never have the image just "floating" in a featureless black void as with an ideal projector setup -- so you'd always have features of the room or even the tv's bezel itself, or your hands, etc, to give your brain cues as to scale. Similarly, in the thread in this forum about turning your theater into a true bat-cave, there are several comments from people who walked into a velveted theater room and judged the screen as much larger than it actually was because there were no visible room features to indicate scale.

Another thing that makes me think this is gadgets like Sony's HMZ head-mounted displays, which have screens of a few inches in size but that appear -- as far as your brain is concerned -- to be something like a 100" screen -- because they're so close and the field of view is equivalent, and again with nothing else to give it scale.

For myself, I am asking because I did this experiment the other night. I shrunk my 2.35 image from 126" wide to 108" wide (because that's all I'll have room for in my new house), masked off the unused portion of my screen, and moved my sofa up accordingly so that I got the same angle of view. Looked the same to me. This experiment was prompted by seeing Pacific Rim in the theater; the 25'+ wide screen seemed like a much smaller image than my 7' wide 16:9 at home, because I was sitting much further back relatively and my angle of view was smaller.
curttard is offline  
post #5 of 70 Old 09-12-2013, 12:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,070
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 288 Post(s)
Liked: 215
Before Sony sold their building in New York City, the ground floor was a store that had most of their current products on display for you to play with and purchase if desired. They had the HMZ headset on display. I didn't think it gave anywhere near the same sense of immersion a real 100" gives you. It looked gimmicky and the 3D wasn't all that impressive. Like I said, I don't think our eyes work on a linear scale like that. I'm fairly certain that sitting the appropriate distance from an IMAX screen gives you a much better sense of grandeur compared to a 50" flat panel when sitting at the same distance to take up the same field of vision. Many will argue it should look the same to your eyes but in practice I think our brain outwits our eyes and will compensate for the difference in actual size even though the field of vision is the same. Like I said though there are many out there that will disagree and say the experience is the same. I simply disagree.

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

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Seegs108 is online now  
post #6 of 70 Old 09-12-2013, 01:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,983
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 146
Screen size and room space is important. It is what I call the "auditorium effect". There are different points though to how much it matters, like sitting closer to a 110" screen or farther from a 120" screen really isn't going to make a huge difference in many rooms (in some it might). But at some point you do gain or lose a sense of openness in your theater.

Ever walked into a giant museum and looked around at giant paintings, or maybe upward towards a spiraling staircase in a capitol building. It makes you feel small, and everything else feel bigger. This is what we want in our theaters as much as possible, a sense of grandeur. Our eyes see things dimensionally in the room with a recognition of distance, there is an optimal Z-distance at a given size to experience the maximum amount of immersion (what that exact distance is depends).

The Sony glasses would need to fool you to the point of simulating all aspects that the dimensional theater setup gives, and it cannot do that with such a small screen, no matter how close you sit. To fool the brain, you need to be able to completely simulate the viewing stimulation that open space in your peripheral vision gives. The more room our peripheral vision has to "breathe", the bigger things seem that are far away (And the bigger we can make them with more space).



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
for both one projector or dual stacks

Web Calculator v023 & v025
-
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

**Current Projector Calculator** --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Coder's Top Projector Picks of 2012 --
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.

coderguy is offline  
post #7 of 70 Old 09-12-2013, 02:20 AM
Member
 
Matrixfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think it's also more pleasing to the eye to adjust and maintain focus for a longer viewing distance. I've noticed this especially with long gaming sessions. Gaming on the projector is much easier on the eyes, and not just because of the screen being a secondary light source compared to a display.
Matrixfan is offline  
post #8 of 70 Old 09-12-2013, 06:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JonStatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrixfan View Post

I think it's also more pleasing to the eye to adjust and maintain focus for a longer viewing distance. I've noticed this especially with long gaming sessions. Gaming on the projector is much easier on the eyes, and not just because of the screen being a secondary light source compared to a display.

I agree. Focusing at such close distances is uncomfortable for a long time.

Also, if you have any interest in 3D remember that a main point is to occupy 'real world" space. Sitting close up to a 3D TV does NOT equal the same as an IMAX 3D experience even if the FOV is the same because there is no distance. real world space, for the 3D to occupy. Instead you just get headaches from straining to focus so close to the screen.
JonStatt is offline  
post #9 of 70 Old 09-12-2013, 07:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 321
I'm sitting quite close to my 27" computer monitor - a viewing angle closer than how I often watch my projection screen. My brain isn't fooled for a second that this screen is as large or larger than
my projection screen. Our brain uses more cues than just viewing angle to judge size. You can get more immersion by moving closer, but the sense of the image actually being bigger faces limitations.

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 #10 of 70 Old 09-12-2013, 08:01 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Interesting. Most of the objections above are dependent on getting cues from the room, something that velveting a room (for example) is trying to minimize if not eliminate.

As for the strain of focusing closer, I'm not trying to suggest sitting two feet from a screen. I'm talking about the difference between, say, sitting 10 feet from a 142" screen vs 8 feet from a 106" screen (or whatever the equivalent distance is). In other words, not focusing any closer (say, 6ft) than the average person would watching television.

Computer monitors are also extremely bright and hard on your eyes in that way.

None of you have thought the image in a movie theater seemed smaller than the image in your home theater, despite being twice or more the actual size in every dimension?
curttard is offline  
post #11 of 70 Old 09-12-2013, 08:30 AM
Senior Member
 
joepaiii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Aren't you really asking if the immersion level is the same? That's really what you are after with a larger screen or by trying to fill your field of view by a screen.
joepaiii is offline  
post #12 of 70 Old 09-12-2013, 09:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JonStatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

Interesting. Most of the objections above are dependent on getting cues from the room, something that velveting a room (for example) is trying to minimize if not eliminate.

As for the strain of focusing closer, I'm not trying to suggest sitting two feet from a screen. I'm talking about the difference between, say, sitting 10 feet from a 142" screen vs 8 feet from a 106" screen (or whatever the equivalent distance is). In other words, not focusing any closer (say, 6ft) than the average person would watching television.

Computer monitors are also extremely bright and hard on your eyes in that way.

None of you have thought the image in a movie theater seemed smaller than the image in your home theater, despite being twice or more the actual size in every dimension?

Velveting a room is not there to remove depth cues but to remove reflections. You still see chairs and other objects in the room which give you a relationship between the size of the screen, the size of an object on the screen, and the relative sizes of real world objects. When you go to a movie theatre, unless its a particularly poor one, its a large room with many seats, that gives you an impression of vastness. You can never simulate that experience in the home even if the screen occupies the same FOV. You may get a better picture quality, remove annoying audience members, flying popcorn and the undesirable smells, but unless you have a room truly as big as a movie theatre the experience will never be the same.
JonStatt is offline  
post #13 of 70 Old 09-12-2013, 09:56 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Don't you ideally try to remove objects between you and the screen? I know that when I moved a coffee table (that was always cluttered) out, it made a big difference -- one less size cue.
Quote:
When you go to a movie theatre, unless its a particularly poor one, its a large room with many seats, that gives you an impression of vastness. You can never simulate that experience in the home even if the screen occupies the same FOV. You may get a better picture quality, remove annoying audience members, flying popcorn and the undesirable smells, but unless you have a room truly as big as a movie theatre the experience will never be the same.

So you've never thought your image at home seemed larger than one you saw at a movie theater? It's certainly not the same experience because yes, the room is much smaller. But the actual image I was watching (Pacific Rim and This is the End) appeared smaller to me, despite being a minimum of 2x wider (probably 3x), because I was farther away. I ironically felt more like I was watching TV at the movie theater than I do at home with my own much smaller screen with those two movies. I even put on the Pacific Rim trailer at home after getting home from the theater to confirm it and found the image to be larger and more immersive.

Guess I'm alone on this one though!
curttard is offline  
post #14 of 70 Old 09-12-2013, 10:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JonStatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

Don't you ideally try to remove objects between you and the screen? I know that when I moved a coffee table (that was always cluttered) out, it made a big difference -- one less size cue.
So you've never thought your image at home seemed larger than one you saw at a movie theater? It's certainly not the same experience because yes, the room is much smaller. But the actual image I was watching (Pacific Rim and This is the End) appeared smaller to me, despite being a minimum of 2x wider (probably 3x), because I was farther away. I ironically felt more like I was watching TV at the movie theater than I do at home with my own much smaller screen with those two movies. I even put on the Pacific Rim trailer at home after getting home from the theater to confirm it and found the image to be larger and more immersive.

Guess I'm alone on this one though!

This reminds me of the discussion around those head mounted glasses you can buy. The screens are obviously tiny like 1 inch per eye, but they claim you feel like you are watching a 150" screen from 10 feet away. Perhaps this is very specific to the individual. Some users of such units feel they are watching this monster display, while others see it exactly for what it is, a tiny screen an inch away from their eyeball!

I have believed the difference in perception is related to how your brain is wired to deal with depth cues. The lack of a depth/size cue for some people means they cannot build a good framework in their mind of what they are seeing (or think they are seeing). There have been jokes about whether these head mounted displays should include miniature cinema seats to help those who work that way. While others, because there are no depth cues, seem to let their imaginations work wonders and see this enormous screen despite the true reality.

In your case, the removal of a coffee table, helped you imagine a larger screen perception. This means your brain falls into the latter category. I can tell you that doesn't work for me! I find even when I watch 3D material, I need "something" in the room to relate its position and size to. If I watch 3D in a truly blacked out, no object environment, then I stop being able to see when something is partially out of the screen because I don't have a basis that defines zero in the z-axis.
JonStatt is offline  
post #15 of 70 Old 09-12-2013, 10:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,756
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 490 Post(s)
Liked: 794
do you have any family or friends?

the larger the screen the more ppl can view it near the 'sweet spot'. i mean, i have a laptop sitting on my lap right now that can completely eclipse my 40" tv behind it, but 2-3 ppl could watch the tv, only I can watch the laptop screen.

it also becomes a matter of matching it to the audio. a larger room with a larger soundstage is a lot more appealing imo. having a small screen 3 feet away from you and your speakers spaced out in a large room leaves a disconnect between audio and video. moving the speakers in close doesn't give you the same feeling of space that is usually the intent of the movie(not many movies happen in small spaces).

now, within reason, you can absolutely get away with sitting closer. if we're talking the difference between a 100" screen and a 110" screen, sure, sit 2feet closer and no problem. however, with screens, some things don't scale up, like screen texture. if you see screen texture from 10feet away, you'll see it on a 300" screen and 50" screen equally. so if you can go with a larger screen and sit farther away, it reduces screen texture while maintaining picture detail. of course, getting a better screen is also an option, haha.
TorTorden likes this.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #16 of 70 Old 09-12-2013, 10:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,756
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 490 Post(s)
Liked: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

Don't you ideally try to remove objects between you and the screen? I know that when I moved a coffee table (that was always cluttered) out, it made a big difference -- one less size cue.
So you've never thought your image at home seemed larger than one you saw at a movie theater? It's certainly not the same experience because yes, the room is much smaller. But the actual image I was watching (Pacific Rim and This is the End) appeared smaller to me, despite being a minimum of 2x wider (probably 3x), because I was farther away. I ironically felt more like I was watching TV at the movie theater than I do at home with my own much smaller screen with those two movies. I even put on the Pacific Rim trailer at home after getting home from the theater to confirm it and found the image to be larger and more immersive.

Guess I'm alone on this one though!

not alone, i don't go to theatres anymore because it's no longer giving me a feeling of being 'huge'. it feels normal at best.

i think what others are arguing is that if you sit in the 'right' spot in relation to the screen, bigger still gives a better experience. that is to say, if you sat 'only' 2x as far away from the screen in the theatre it would still look more impressive than your screen at home. but because you sat too far away from it, it became 'smaller' and that's why it lost it's impressiveness.

but for your specific situation. dropping just a few inches and sitting a couple feet closer won't be a huge deal. i have dreams of going larger because i want a larger room, not because i want a larger image. i want to get more space in the room without losing the amount of immersion i already have.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #17 of 70 Old 09-12-2013, 10:19 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonStatt View Post

Velveting a room is not there to remove depth cues but to remove reflections.

I velveted my room not just to stop reflections to the screen, but very specifically to remove other visual cues in the room, to increase the sense of image depth. And it works!

I've talked before about the "closing one eye" experience when watching a 2D image on screen. When I (and other people who have tried this) cover one eye while at a movie theater, or watching a movie at home, an amazing change happens. As I keep one eye covered, the image slowly starts looking more and more like a 3D image, like I'm peering into real space, real spacial relationships between objects on the screen.
Again, others who have tried this find the same amazing illusion.

I surmise that the explanation is roughly that our brain uses a variety of cues to determine depth and distance, and when I deprive myself of the stereoscopic cue by only using one eye, then my brain is forced to start making sense of what I'm seeing based on it's other methods, from the information it still has - e.g. shading, shadows, lines of convergence, etc.

On a similar theory I have tried totally blacking out all round the image, floor, walls, ceiling, no visible objects in front of the screen, just pitch black. And it seems to produce a similar effect: without other visual cues telling me "the image in front of you is flat," my brain seems to latch on to the only depth cues it has available - from the on-screen image. And there becomes an increased sense of depth and distance between objects, almost 3D like in many scenes. It was after experimenting, seeing if this would be the case and finding it so, that I have gone to the trouble and expense to be able to fully black out around my image.

YMMV I'm sure....
Elix likes this.

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 #18 of 70 Old 09-12-2013, 11:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 23
I can attest to Rich's post. When I block the view of one eye the image slowly turns to 3D. Not only that, I start to percieve the motions on the screen to become more choppy and breaking apart in action scenes just like I experience with 3D films. Thus I came to the conclusion that the stuttering experienced in 3D which led to the development of higher frame rate 3D (the hobbit/ avatar 2) is not due to the technology. It's in our brains! The stutter is always there in 24 hz, the increased realism of 3D just makes it stand out as it's more life like and we dont see stuttering motion in real life!
Drexler is offline  
post #19 of 70 Old 09-12-2013, 11:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,756
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 490 Post(s)
Liked: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I velveted my room not just to stop reflections to the screen, but very specifically to remove other visual cues in the room, to increase the sense of image depth. And it works!

I've talked before about the "closing one eye" experience when watching a 2D image on screen. When I (and other people who have tried this) cover one eye while at a movie theater, or watching a movie at home, an amazing change happens. As I keep one eye covered, the image slowly starts looking more and more like a 3D image, like I'm peering into real space, real spacial relationships between objects on the screen.
Again, others who have tried this find the same amazing illusion.

I surmise that the explanation is roughly that our brain uses a variety of cues to determine depth and distance, and when I deprive myself of the stereoscopic cue by only using one eye, then my brain is forced to start making sense of what I'm seeing based on it's other methods, from the information it still has - e.g. shading, shadows, lines of convergence, etc.

On a similar theory I have tried totally blacking out all round the image, floor, walls, ceiling, no visible objects in front of the screen, just pitch black. And it seems to produce a similar effect: without other visual cues telling me "the image in front of you is flat," my brain seems to latch on to the only depth cues it has available - from the on-screen image. And there becomes an increased sense of depth and distance between objects, almost 3D like in many scenes. It was after experimenting, seeing if this would be the case and finding it so, that I have gone to the trouble and expense to be able to fully black out around my image.

YMMV I'm sure....

i'll buy this. i'm blind in my left eye so i'm obviously getting other visual cues and they work reasonably well(played elite level hockey as a goalie, provincial level badminton in high school, and several other sports at an above average level)

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #20 of 70 Old 09-12-2013, 11:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
seanbryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Knowhere
Posts: 544
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I find the image depth with one eye closed quite amazing. If only it wasn't so uncomfortable keeping an eye shut, I would watch everything like this. Maybe I'll try an eye patch. Seems silly, but the improvement is so dramatic for me that I've actually considered doing that.
seanbryan is offline  
post #21 of 70 Old 09-13-2013, 02:58 AM
Advanced Member
 
dovercat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I would expect ocular cues to the image's true distance, true size and true flatness, might have some affect. The closer the screen the stronger the following ocular cues are going to be.
Accommodation focal length of eyes lenses to make image of the object sharp.
Convergence muscles rotating eyes to both look at the same object.
Retinal disparity the gap between eyes causing different images on each eye.

For the illusion of not looking at a picture you want those ocular cues overridden by the visual depth cues in the image. The greater the viewing distance the less strong the occular cues and the greater the weight given to other visual cues in the image as to the distance, size, and non-flatness of objects. Hopefully creating a better illusion.
dovercat is online now  
post #22 of 70 Old 09-13-2013, 04:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JonStatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 43
This is one of my favourite topics as we are not all wired the same.

If I close one eye, I do not magically start interpreting what I am seeing as 3D. The reason some people do that is because with only one eye, the brain doesn't get a 3D visual cue, so it "makes it up" based on what it knows about the relative sizes of objects. For example, a one-eyed man does not go tripping over everything in the room as the brain creates a 3D image based on what it knows about the relative sizes of real-world objects.

if I close one eye, I don't go tripping over things in the room, but neither will my brain convert a 2D movie image into a pseudo 3D one. What I do find is if I watch a 3D movie, sometimes I stop realizing it is 3D, but if I close one eye and watch for a while, then re-enable the other eye, the 3D becomes much more obvious again for a while.
JonStatt is offline  
post #23 of 70 Old 09-13-2013, 05:53 AM
Member
 
Matrixfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
There are involuntary micro movements of the eye in order maintain the ability to see. Otherwise the retina would have "hot pixels", just like a camera sensor. This can only be prevented by toxin injections, there is no self conscious control of this. This means that even using one eye, the brain is always able to decode a parallax 3D image, so we still have some kind of a sense of depth.
Matrixfan is offline  
post #24 of 70 Old 09-13-2013, 08:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 321
(I know I've gone on about this before but...)

Since we are talking about the perception of image depth there's another element that I rarely see discussed: the viewing angle of the viewer to the screen, relative to the depth cues.
There's lots of talk of "recommended screen heights" and such, but they tend to pertain to visibility of the image for multiple rows, or viewer comfort etc. What I'm talking about is viewer position strictly with respect to maximizing the impression of image depth.

If you take a painting, for instance a painting of a street or building with classical attempts to capture realistic lines of perspective, then that painting will have captured just one perspective: the single position and perspective of the artist painting it. Hence all perspective depth cues, lines converging to the horizon etc, all only "make perfect sense" or are accurate, from that exact perspective. You have to be positioned right in front of the painting if you want to experience the least distortion of that perspective. Yes, you can be off to one side, or above or below the painting and still understand the perspective. But what you are doing is overlaying a second perspective to what you are seeing - your off-angle perspective to the painting, hence a second set of conflicting perspective-to-the-horizon angles - which makes your brain immediately recognize the image as "wrong" or "flat." But situate yourself perfectly centered to the image (so you aren't to the side or above or below) and you have a chance to better "experience" the perspective of the painting in a more convincing manner.

It's the same with photography and cinematography. It's all, like the classical perspective paintings, capturing perspective angles and cues from the single perspective of the camera itself. To be able to interpret those perspective cues more believably you need to be dead center to the image, because being below or off to the side introduces more obvious conflicting perspective cues telling your mind "that image on screen is flat."
My blacking out around the projected image is one way of getting rid of the competing perspective cues, but I also tried to situate the screen so I can be a centered horizontally and vertically to the image as much as possible. When I do so I notice that there's a sense of the perspective sort of "clicking in" and a deeper sense of immersion in the image.

I'd always noted that as well once the stadium seating movie theaters arrived, e.g. IMAX and how lots of regular theaters began to follow such tiered seating. Previously most movie theater images had been somewhat above me, on a stage or what have you. But with stadium seating I found myself oriented to the center of the screen and I noticed how more immersed I felt in the image. It really works at home paying attention to these details as well.
Elix likes this.

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 #25 of 70 Old 09-13-2013, 08:47 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Interesting stuff! I'm looking forward to my mostly-velvet new theater in the new house, and after my experiment I'm no longer worried about having to reduce my 2.35 screen from 124" wide to 108" wide.
curttard is offline  
post #26 of 70 Old 09-13-2013, 09:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JonStatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

(I know I've gone on about this before but...)


I'd always noted that as well once the stadium seating movie theaters arrived, e.g. IMAX and how lots of regular theaters began to follow such tiered seating. Previously most movie theater images had been somewhat above me, on a stage or what have you. But with stadium seating I found myself oriented to the center of the screen and I noticed how more immersed I felt in the image. It really works at home paying attention to these details as well.

IMAX aside, there is a certain amount of nostalgia associated with movies. An example is that we associate 24 frames per second as cinematic whereas 50 or 60 fps as like home camcorder. Larger cinemas have stalls and a "royal' circle. Both views were either below the picture looking up, or near the top of the picture looking down. In most cinemas even today, you are normally viewing from one of those perspectives. Forgetting comfort, correctness, immersion and everything else, many of us affectionately associate looking up at the screen at 24fps as "a night out at the movie theatre". You are right that if you are centered within the picture frame you will get best immersion and least distortion, but my experience also finds it takes something away from the movie theatre experience. Bottom line, are you trying to make the best movie watching experience or the best home movie theatre replication? I seem to have favoured the latter for no particularly good reason as I had just naturally migrated to this direction.
JonStatt is offline  
post #27 of 70 Old 09-13-2013, 10:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,756
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 490 Post(s)
Liked: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonStatt View Post

IMAX aside, there is a certain amount of nostalgia associated with movies. An example is that we associate 24 frames per second as cinematic whereas 50 or 60 fps as like home camcorder. Larger cinemas have stalls and a "royal' circle. Both views were either below the picture looking up, or near the top of the picture looking down. In most cinemas even today, you are normally viewing from one of those perspectives. Forgetting comfort, correctness, immersion and everything else, many of us affectionately associate looking up at the screen at 24fps as "a night out at the movie theatre". You are right that if you are centered within the picture frame you will get best immersion and least distortion, but my experience also finds it takes something away from the movie theatre experience. Bottom line, are you trying to make the best movie watching experience or the best home movie theatre replication? I seem to have favoured the latter for no particularly good reason as I had just naturally migrated to this direction.
fair points. my goal was always to provide a BETTER movie viewing experience than what is typically available at the commercial theatres. i want to be in the movie, not in the movie theatre. truth be told, i hate the movie theatre experience. uncomfortable chairs, tons of annoying people, no control, stupid 'exit' signs right beside the screen...

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #28 of 70 Old 09-13-2013, 11:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JonStatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

fair points. my goal was always to provide a BETTER movie viewing experience than what is typically available at the commercial theatres. i want to be in the movie, not in the movie theatre. truth be told, i hate the movie theatre experience. uncomfortable chairs, tons of annoying people, no control, stupid 'exit' signs right beside the screen...

LOL - I have NOT, and never will, add an Emergency EXIT sign near to my screen smile.gif
JonStatt is offline  
post #29 of 70 Old 09-13-2013, 01:21 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: 4,973
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Liked: 254
Quote:
fair points. my goal was always to provide a BETTER movie viewing experience than what is typically available at the commercial theatres. i want to be in the movie, not in the movie theatre. truth be told, i hate the movie theatre experience. uncomfortable chairs, tons of annoying people, no control, stupid 'exit' signs right beside the screen...

I haven't been to a commecial theater since my wife dragged me to the original Sex and the City movie with friends. Our theater provides a much better picture and sound. I do have exit signs though - follow the line of empty wine bottles out............................smile.gif
TorTorden likes this.

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 #30 of 70 Old 09-13-2013, 02:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,079
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 283 Post(s)
Liked: 354
I have never been fooled into believing that my screen is larger than it really is just by sitting closer. Although you may fill the same field-of-vision as a larger screen that way, your eyes have to focus on a nearer plane and your brain automatically compensates for that to calculate the size.

With that said, there are legitimate reasons for choosing to install a smaller screen, such as increased brightness and contrast, less visibility of artifacts, etc. Your ideal screen size will have to hit a sweet spot between a large immersive size and just plain good picture quality. You often have to compromise on one to get the other.

My own screen is 8-feet wide at 2.35:1 ratio. Many on this forum would consider that small (meanwhile, all of my friends with 32" LCD TVs think it's the most obscenely massive thing they've ever seen). It's just the right size for me, at my seating distance with my projector and my standards for picture quality. I would personally not want to go larger, because I like a bright, punchy image with strong contrast and am not a fan of high-gain screens. I read posts where people boast of installing 120", 150", 170" or larger screens and I just know that what they consider a watchable picture is not something I would be happy with at all. To each their own. We all have our own personal goals for what we want to achieve with our home theaters. What works for one may not work for another.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z 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