??? 110?? screen @ 10?? vs 220?? screen @ 20?? ??? - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 17Likes
  • 3 Post By airscapes
  • 1 Post By Dave in Green
  • 1 Post By steve1106
  • 1 Post By bud16415
  • 1 Post By Dave in Green
  • 1 Post By steve1106
  • 1 Post By steve1106
  • 1 Post By Ftoast
  • 3 Post By gil393
  • 3 Post By dovercat
  • 1 Post By Char1983
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 26 Old 07-13-2017, 09:43 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,480
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
??? 110” screen @ 10’ vs 220” screen @ 20’ ???

Here is a simple question I have seen talked about for years but I don’t think it has ever been asked here. If it has it will be interesting to see if we get different answers now. I put it here instead of screens because I want the opinions of the under 3000 folks.

Is there a difference in the visual experience in a proper home theater setting between watching a 110” screen size movie from 10’ seating distance and a 220” screen size movie from 20’ seating distance? If so what is different?

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 26 Old 07-13-2017, 12:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
airscapes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 5,627
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
Liked: 307
Thousands of Dollars.. maybe 10's of thousands.. to properly light 220 inches

Doug
Planar PD8150 with DC4 DMD paired with a Dalite HP 2.8 110"
http://www.airscapesart.com

 

Last edited by airscapes; 07-13-2017 at 03:04 PM.
airscapes is offline  
post #3 of 26 Old 07-13-2017, 01:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 4,783
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2032 Post(s)
Liked: 1308
In pure darkness in a room with all black surfaces that reflect no light a 110" image from 10' will appear identical to a 220" image from 20'. However, in an imperfect room with light-colored surfaces, ambient light and even light from the screen illuminating the room will make things visible that will give a reference point to make the bigger screen appear bigger even from the longer distance. For example, if a chair you're familiar with that's sitting near to the screen is illuminated it will appear half as big from 20' as 10' making the 220" screen appear larger in scale by comparison.
bud16415 likes this.
Dave in Green is offline  
 
post #4 of 26 Old 07-13-2017, 01:52 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 1,795
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 662 Post(s)
Liked: 389
Have you ever gone to the movies and been stuck in the smallest theater out of the 18 available and been instantly disappointed? That is the difference.

If you walked into the perfect commercial theater with the best sound and image you've ever experienced only to see a 110" screen, would you be okay with your ticket purchase? Sit as close as you like, but would you really be happy with your purchase?

I wouldn't.
bud16415 likes this.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-gen...eap-build.html
Epson HC3700/HC2000; Screen - 151.5" 16:9/TV or 143.5" 2.35:1/HT at a seating distance of 13/14 feet; Yamaha RXV675 for 7.4; Speakers - Infinity Primus; Subs - 3 Polk PSW10s, 1 BIC F12; Headphones - 4 JVC wireless; Sony 3D Blu-ray player/six pairs 3D glasses.
steve1106 is offline  
post #5 of 26 Old 07-13-2017, 01:55 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,480
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by airscapes View Post
Thousands of Dollars.. maybe 10 or thousands.. to properly light 220 inches
I guess I should have added both setups would be of the same quality and resolution and foot lamberts of brightness. Identical images the only difference is viewing distance and screen size and of course as Dave suggests a point of reference for scale. Cost being no factor.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #6 of 26 Old 07-13-2017, 02:05 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,480
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
In pure darkness in a room with all black surfaces that reflect no light a 110" image from 10' will appear identical to a 220" image from 20'. However, in an imperfect room with light-colored surfaces, ambient light and even light from the screen illuminating the room will make things visible that will give a reference point to make the bigger screen appear bigger even from the longer distance. For example, if a chair you're familiar with that's sitting near to the screen is illuminated it will appear half as big from 20' as 10' making the 220" screen appear larger in scale by comparison.
I agree if there was no point of reference you would logically see both images the same. I have also never been in a theater that is so dark and so blacked out I didn’t have some clue as to how high the image truly is. Even if it was memory of when I came in and sat down under the house light I ascertained the screen height.

I will even go a step more in my old house I had a basement theater and the ceiling height was 6’2” and my screen was 6’ high. The low ceiling gave the screen the appearance of being larger than it was. If that is true would putting a miniature kids chair down in my sight line make the screen larger?

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #7 of 26 Old 07-13-2017, 02:14 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,480
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
Have you ever gone to the movies and been stuck in the smallest theater out of the 18 available and been instantly disappointed? That is the difference.

If you walked into the perfect commercial theater with the best sound and image you've ever experienced only to see a 110" screen, would you be okay with your ticket purchase? Sit as close as you like, but would you really be happy with your purchase?

I wouldn't.
I agree in part and I know it has long been your desire for raw size and I sometimes have disagreed with you kind of the premise of what Dave said about relative screen size and vision. Here is what got me wondering I was given one of those cheap VR head sets that I put my iPhone 7 in and I downloaded a 3D VR movie player that has me sitting in a giant IMAX theater I can watch a movie in. it gives me the feeling of space and height and I can move my head around and look off the screen. I know the image is only a couple inches high but in my mind it is 100’ high.

Is my mind detecting the slight perspective shape of the screen and making trick my brain into seeing height? Is there ways we can do this in a home theater?
Ftoast likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #8 of 26 Old 07-13-2017, 02:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 4,783
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2032 Post(s)
Liked: 1308
In a commercial theater there is typically enough light from the screen to see people sitting in front of you as well as parts of the theater and they become reference points that help give perspective on actual screen size. Only in a totally blacked out room with no visible reference points does a screen twice as big from twice the distance appear to be the same size. It's also true that those who are able to tune out reference points and focus entirely on the screen image will be less bothered by watching half as large a screen from half the viewing distance. Everyone is wired a little differently so what one person says works for them doesn't necessarily apply to everyone else.
bud16415 likes this.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #9 of 26 Old 07-13-2017, 02:52 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,480
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
I think this so interesting of a topic because seldom do I see mentioned what is off the screen. In my case my wall is the screen and my screen wall is a very dark gray so the entire frame around the screen and the back wall in effect is black do to my off screen masking and not giving away a clue to the screen size or boundary like you would get on a framed screen against a lighter wall.

So what I’m hearing so far is that there is a subconscious perception of size and that influences our enjoyment factor. Just as Steve mentioned how we might be let down if we paid a ticket price and came in to find a smaller screen than we expected even though seating distance has been corrected.

If this is true someone needs to get a hold of the IMAX people and tell them the premise of all these new theaters is wrong. I have been reading a lot of negative reviews of IMAX as people go in expecting a 80’ high screen and seeing a 40’ feeling ripped off and even though IMAX is adjusting seating distance to an IMAX experience people are leaving feeling slighted.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #10 of 26 Old 07-13-2017, 02:56 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 1,795
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 662 Post(s)
Liked: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
In a commercial theater there is typically enough light from the screen to see people sitting in front of you as well as parts of the theater and they become reference points that help give perspective on actual screen size. Only in a totally blacked out room with no visible reference points does a screen twice as big from twice the distance appear to be the same size. It's also true that those who are able to tune out reference points and focus entirely on the screen image will be less bothered by watching half as large a screen from half the viewing distance. Everyone is wired a little differently so what one person says works for them doesn't necessarily apply to everyone else.
I say it doesn't exist. Skin, clothing, leather and so on will always create a point of reference and pick up light reflected from the screen. Now if we could train our eyes not to adjust to low light conditions for movie watching (maybe some eye drops Bud), that would be nice. Like walking into a movie from a sunny day and you are as blind as a bat and can only see the bright screen.

On screens, I often see great big beautiful rooms with little screens and think how much larger the screen could've been, so yes, I am wired differently to some.
bud16415 likes this.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-gen...eap-build.html
Epson HC3700/HC2000; Screen - 151.5" 16:9/TV or 143.5" 2.35:1/HT at a seating distance of 13/14 feet; Yamaha RXV675 for 7.4; Speakers - Infinity Primus; Subs - 3 Polk PSW10s, 1 BIC F12; Headphones - 4 JVC wireless; Sony 3D Blu-ray player/six pairs 3D glasses.
steve1106 is offline  
post #11 of 26 Old 07-13-2017, 03:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 1,795
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 662 Post(s)
Liked: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
If this is true someone needs to get a hold of the IMAX people and tell them the premise of all these new theaters is wrong. I have been reading a lot of negative reviews of IMAX as people go in expecting a 80’ high screen and seeing a 40’ feeling ripped off and even though IMAX is adjusting seating distance to an IMAX experience people are leaving feeling slighted.
I have been following you on CIH and I think it is a gimmick. "Old" IMAX was almost at the 4:3 aspect ratio of the the old theaters of yesteryear (pre 1950s) and LieMax at 1.9 is basically 16:9...but I would pick LieMax over a standard scope Blu-ray just to fill up the extra screen space in my primitive theater. For me it is the same argument for watching 16:9 as large as possible...but we all see things differently. I did like the Beauty and Beast images you provided.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	beauty-and-the-beast-imax-ratio.jpg
Views:	42
Size:	210.2 KB
ID:	2234617  
bud16415 likes this.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-gen...eap-build.html
Epson HC3700/HC2000; Screen - 151.5" 16:9/TV or 143.5" 2.35:1/HT at a seating distance of 13/14 feet; Yamaha RXV675 for 7.4; Speakers - Infinity Primus; Subs - 3 Polk PSW10s, 1 BIC F12; Headphones - 4 JVC wireless; Sony 3D Blu-ray player/six pairs 3D glasses.
steve1106 is offline  
post #12 of 26 Old 07-13-2017, 03:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ftoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,624
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2245 Post(s)
Liked: 708
My recent trip to a Dolby hdr/atmos theatre (despite its many odd failings that I whined about in length) did have a pretty effective seating-arrangement which kept seats and other theater-goers' heads/shoulders out of the field-of-view.
If they had bothered to *cough* actually mask the 16:9 screen to properly fit the scope movie, it could've been a nearly perfectly floating image in a sea of black.

My black fabric "hometheater" can also do a pretty nice job of making the surrounding..everything seem to disappear.

Now I'm curious how well the effect of miniatures could work. The perspective should hold through head turning/nodding, but lateral and vertical strafing motions (leaning toward the side or slouching) might somewhat break the illusion.

Then again, a $1500 Epson3700 can pretty effectively light a 20ftX11ft screen in a darkened room..making use of four them with their lens-shift and a computer with a decent graphics system..~$6000 4K machine with ~1500:1nativeCR plus dynamic-iris powerful enough for a 40ft-wide screen.
Re-lamping would cost near $1000, but I don't think that's bad compared to Xenon.

Miniature sounds more fun. It would look like Godzilla whenever someone needs to leave for the bathroom or food/beverage.
bud16415 likes this.

Easy $25 DIY black (or any color) ALR paint +$40-$50sprayer screen mix smooth/clean and very easy to learn spraying with little/no mess.
Simple $25-40 DIY black/dark-grey ambient-light rejecting screen, grab two things from a local store..mix..roll..done.
Quick <$250 dedicated black-fabric theater room "A store that sells blinds can help your picture more than a store that sells projectors many times." -bud16415
Ftoast is online now  
post #13 of 26 Old 07-13-2017, 07:23 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,480
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
I have been following you on CIH and I think it is a gimmick. "Old" IMAX was almost at the 4:3 aspect ratio of the the old theaters of yesteryear (pre 1950s) and LieMax at 1.9 is basically 16:9...but I would pick LieMax over a standard scope Blu-ray just to fill up the extra screen space in my primitive theater. For me it is the same argument for watching 16:9 as large as possible...but we all see things differently. I did like the Beauty and Beast images you provided.
Oh I agree I loved the original IMAX ratio regardless of the home media resolution. I built a whole 4:3 theater based around showing IMAX from DVD 12 years ago.

I wont call it LieMAX though they are pretty clear the direction they wanted to go with the IMAX1.89 it is a full scope movie with 13% more image on the top and 13% more image on the bottom. They are not lying as to what you get and most people that understand it know a scope movie is going to be cut right out of the middle so they are not going to use that 26% for story telling. It isn’t trying to be the 1.43 and it surely isn’t trying to be a flat movie or like 16:9 TV as it should be watched immersive like scope only taller.

So you are the one that has been stalking that other thread, lol. Thanks for jumping in. It has only been 14 on 1 for a week haha.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #14 of 26 Old 07-13-2017, 07:39 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,480
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftoast View Post
My recent trip to a Dolby hdr/atmos theatre (despite its many odd failings that I whined about in length) did have a pretty effective seating-arrangement which kept seats and other theater-goers' heads/shoulders out of the field-of-view.
If they had bothered to *cough* actually mask the 16:9 screen to properly fit the scope movie, it could've been a nearly perfectly floating image in a sea of black.

My black fabric "hometheater" can also do a pretty nice job of making the surrounding..everything seem to disappear.

Now I'm curious how well the effect of miniatures could work. The perspective should hold through head turning/nodding, but lateral and vertical strafing motions (leaning toward the side or slouching) might somewhat break the illusion.

Then again, a $1500 Epson3700 can pretty effectively light a 20ftX11ft screen in a darkened room..making use of four them with their lens-shift and a computer with a decent graphics system..~$6000 4K machine with ~1500:1nativeCR plus dynamic-iris powerful enough for a 40ft-wide screen.
Re-lamping would cost near $1000, but I don't think that's bad compared to Xenon.

Miniature sounds more fun. It would look like Godzilla whenever someone needs to leave for the bathroom or food/beverage.
I think everyone is disappointed in the lack of showmanship in the presentation department over the last several years.

I really expected a different twist in the concept of screen size seating distance in this thread. It seems many more are thinking outside the box on this idea also.

I don’t know about miniatures, but I could see causing an optical illusion in the design of the room with sloping the walls and ceiling in to the screen slightly to give the room greater apparent depth. Kind of like the fun house where you stand on one side of the room and it looks like you are 10 foot tall. Maybe that’s the idea behind the little stage many once built out below their screen.

I know I had something going on in my little IMAX theater as people would guess my 10’ screen much larger.

I once thought about painting a mural behind my seating that gave the feeling of many rows behind with the seats filled with famous actors from the old days. I could picture it but unfortunately I’m no artist.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #15 of 26 Old 07-14-2017, 06:10 AM
Member
 
gil393's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 70
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I think everyone is disappointed in the lack of showmanship in the presentation department over the last several years.

I really expected a different twist in the concept of screen size seating distance in this thread. It seems many more are thinking outside the box on this idea also.

I don’t know about miniatures, but I could see causing an optical illusion in the design of the room with sloping the walls and ceiling in to the screen slightly to give the room greater apparent depth. Kind of like the fun house where you stand on one side of the room and it looks like you are 10 foot tall. Maybe that’s the idea behind the little stage many once built out below their screen.

I know I had something going on in my little IMAX theater as people would guess my 10’ screen much larger.

I once thought about painting a mural behind my seating that gave the feeling of many rows behind with the seats filled with famous actors from the old days. I could picture it but unfortunately I’m no artist.
The main advantage I see in a larger screen is that you can have more people watching the movie together. I have a 200" screen and currently seat 24. I can go up to 35 (we had 50+ for the super bowl). In my opinion the front row is too close but the kids seem to like it. At this size 1 row is sub optimal, 2 rows are good, and the back row/bar is decent but you are sitting on bar stools.

There is a fare amount of hassle in a room that size. Audio, projector, etc. all become that much "more".

A much smaller room/screen will provide the same experience but probably only for 1 optimal row. At some point I think that going too small might cause problems with Audio, speaker sizes and separation if you try and put the speakers behind the screen.

The other benefit to a larger screen is that the viewers head position can change without throwing off their viewing angle as much, ie you do not need to keep your head as still. The mind compensates for all of this but i do find watching a movie on a large computer monitor from a close distance very tedious.

OTOH, my main TV is a 34" 16x9 CRT that we watch from 12' and do not plan on changing. So I am not predisposed to big images.

Just my $.02
dreamer, bud16415 and Ftoast like this.
gil393 is offline  
post #16 of 26 Old 07-14-2017, 07:07 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,480
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by gil393 View Post
The main advantage I see in a larger screen is that you can have more people watching the movie together. I have a 200" screen and currently seat 24. I can go up to 35 (we had 50+ for the super bowl). In my opinion the front row is too close but the kids seem to like it. At this size 1 row is sub optimal, 2 rows are good, and the back row/bar is decent but you are sitting on bar stools.

There is a fare amount of hassle in a room that size. Audio, projector, etc. all become that much "more".

A much smaller room/screen will provide the same experience but probably only for 1 optimal row. At some point I think that going too small might cause problems with Audio, speaker sizes and separation if you try and put the speakers behind the screen.

The other benefit to a larger screen is that the viewers head position can change without throwing off their viewing angle as much, ie you do not need to keep your head as still. The mind compensates for all of this but i do find watching a movie on a large computer monitor from a close distance very tedious.

OTOH, my main TV is a 34" 16x9 CRT that we watch from 12' and do not plan on changing. So I am not predisposed to big images.

Just my $.02
You summed up all my beliefs for at least the last 12 years that I have been in this hobby quite well.

It isn’t until the last few months and reading comments here and elsewhere that I have been wondering more and more if there isn’t something more to a big screen in mental terms how we perceive it than just the amount of the image that fills the eyes.

Like you I know for sure watching a movie sitting close enough to my 15” laptop to remain immersed is much different than that same level of immersion on my 110” projection screen. Even given better resolution, better contrast, and more brightness there is no comparison how much better the projector does. I also hear many others going 110 to 150 claiming a better experience a lot. So for simplicity I asked about 110 to 220.

I have also been involved in a LieMAX discussion where people view an IMAX 1.89 no different than a TV show or a flat AR movie.

Like you I was quite happy for many years watching a floor model 25” TV from 10’ across the room, so there is some scaling that takes place in our vision. The CIH forum folks see presenting a scope movie letterboxed in a CIW setup a disaster. I also try and view with a CIH mindset but when I go to friends with front projection and they are doing CIW I don’t find the scope image excessively small only slightly less immersive. Like watching it from a few rows back in the theater. One thing in my theater there is no screen frame to give anything away before the movie starts and I zoom up and down to suit my mood and the content. My whole wall is the screen. I must admit better BD content looks better larger.

Steve first got me thinking about just physical screen size. And lately I have been reading IMAX’s game plan going forward where they are selling the IMAX experience now and not the mammoth IMAX screen. From some of the reactions I see to it there was something about the screen size people want still.

The comments are most interesting thanks for posting.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #17 of 26 Old 07-14-2017, 06:58 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 4,783
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2032 Post(s)
Liked: 1308
I recall the good old days of going to drive-in theaters where the screens were huge but by the time you got a few rows of cars back the image got small pretty fast. Of course back in those days we didn't go so much to see the movies as to get more acquainted with our girlfriends, so there's always that factor to consider.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #18 of 26 Old 07-15-2017, 10:11 AM
Advanced Member
 
dovercat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Here is a simple question I have seen talked about for years but I don’t think it has ever been asked here. If it has it will be interesting to see if we get different answers now. I put it here instead of screens because I want the opinions of the under 3000 folks.

Is there a difference in the visual experience in a proper home theater setting between watching a 110” screen size movie from 10’ seating distance and a 220” screen size movie from 20’ seating distance? If so what is different?
Depth perception cues. The ease at which the brain can be fooled that its looking through a hole in the wall rather than at a image on a screen.

The closer the image the stronger your eyes focusing distance and binocular disparity is at providing depth cues. Cues that will tell your brain the that its a flat image on a screen x amount of feet in front of you and the true size of the object depicted. A good quality projection image can overcome those cues.

The further away the image the more your brain has to rely on depth cues in the image the things that fool your brain into seeing a 2D image as three dimensional reality. Its easier to fool the brain at a greater viewing distance.
skoolpsyk, bud16415 and Ftoast like this.

Last edited by dovercat; 07-15-2017 at 10:27 AM.
dovercat is offline  
post #19 of 26 Old 07-16-2017, 08:57 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,480
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by dovercat View Post
Depth perception cues. The ease at which the brain can be fooled that its looking through a hole in the wall rather than at a image on a screen.

The closer the image the stronger your eyes focusing distance and binocular disparity is at providing depth cues. Cues that will tell your brain the that its a flat image on a screen x amount of feet in front of you and the true size of the object depicted. A good quality projection image can overcome those cues.

The further away the image the more your brain has to rely on depth cues in the image the things that fool your brain into seeing a 2D image as three dimensional reality. Its easier to fool the brain at a greater viewing distance.
Excellent post.

I wear reading glasses so I’m very aware of the pleasure of watching my FP much different than say my monitor. But you are very correct the effect continues past where my vision needs correction.

Makes me want to experiment more with larger images and more distance.

Your description plays a big part in what I always call (film like) when describing FP. Also the lower the light level the larger our iris is the less depth of field we have.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #20 of 26 Old 07-18-2017, 01:36 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
In pure darkness in a room with all black surfaces that reflect no light a 110" image from 10' will appear identical to a 220" image from 20'.
Yeah, but only if you shine 4x the amount of light onto it .
Dave in Green likes this.
Char1983 is offline  
post #21 of 26 Old 07-19-2017, 08:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
skoolpsyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,021
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Interesting discussion and it reminds me of my biggest complaint about 3D.

Yes it adds depth but it changes the perspective of height and distance. The edges of the screen create a reference point that is perceived as closer.

Instead of seeing a mountain the size of a small mountain on a true IMAX screen, in 3D it looks like a cutout of a mountain held at arms length...planets look like soccer balls at arms length...spaceships look like little toys you can pinch between your fingers...


I don't know why this doesn't bother people more.
skoolpsyk is online now  
post #22 of 26 Old 07-19-2017, 11:03 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,480
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by skoolpsyk View Post
Interesting discussion and it reminds me of my biggest complaint about 3D.

Yes it adds depth but it changes the perspective of height and distance. The edges of the screen create a reference point that is perceived as closer.

Instead of seeing a mountain the size of a small mountain on a true IMAX screen, in 3D it looks like a cutout of a mountain held at arms length...planets look like soccer balls at arms length...spaceships look like little toys you can pinch between your fingers...


I don't know why this doesn't bother people more.
I’m not a fan of 3D for realism for those reasons. It is fun for the effect but that’s about it.

For me the truest realism comes with a few things. First is a screen surface coupled with a projector such that you don’t see a 2D surface any longer. Then a level of immersion that takes you away from looking out an open window and puts you outside the window. And lastly a movie with cinematography that thru depth of field and focus gives the illusion of what the director wants you to see and the objects he selects for you not to see clearly, just like true vision. When that comes together it will beat any shutter glasses experience in terms of realism hands down.

We have been talking about some of this in debating IMAX 1.89 in another thread over in CIH forum.

As to screen size I had always been of the mindset of Dave in post number 3, but I’m slowly evolving away from some of it as time goes on.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #23 of 26 Old 07-19-2017, 11:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 1,795
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 662 Post(s)
Liked: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
We have been talking about some of this in debating IMAX 1.89 in another thread over in CIH forum.

As to screen size I had always been of the mindset of Dave in post number 3, but I’m slowly evolving away from some of it as time goes on.
First, are you saying 220" if you have room or 110" in the same room while just sitting closer? Also, I notice they offer cheap kids HT chairs for the miniature effect. Maybe a row in front.

__________________________________________________ _________________________
Second on a side note and only for non-CIHers, I originally agreed with the others that IMAX 1.89 is a gimmick since it is so close to 16:9....but, I just popped in the Avengers: CW 3D disk and watched it in 2D with the expansion to "IMAX" during the fight scene. Next I immediately watched the fight scene with the scope disk. Wow, what a let down after watching the "IMAX" version, so not a gimmick since unlike a 16:9 presentation you don't lose a bit of width information and gain height information. You should give it a go in your "CIH+IMAX" and invite some friends over and ask them which presentation they prefer. I know it will help me justify springing for the 3D if it also opens into IMAX since I'm the only one in the family who likes 3D now they can benefit from the purchase as well.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	ex4.jpg
Views:	20
Size:	115.5 KB
ID:	2246577   Click image for larger version

Name:	ex4a.jpg
Views:	22
Size:	112.2 KB
ID:	2246585  

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-gen...eap-build.html
Epson HC3700/HC2000; Screen - 151.5" 16:9/TV or 143.5" 2.35:1/HT at a seating distance of 13/14 feet; Yamaha RXV675 for 7.4; Speakers - Infinity Primus; Subs - 3 Polk PSW10s, 1 BIC F12; Headphones - 4 JVC wireless; Sony 3D Blu-ray player/six pairs 3D glasses.
steve1106 is offline  
post #24 of 26 Old 07-20-2017, 04:43 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,480
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
First, are you saying 220" if you have room or 110" in the same room while just sitting closer? Also, I notice they offer cheap kids HT chairs for the miniature effect. Maybe a row in front.

__________________________________________________ _________________________
Second on a side note and only for non-CIHers, I originally agreed with the others that IMAX 1.89 is a gimmick since it is so close to 16:9....but, I just popped in the Avengers: CW 3D disk and watched it in 2D with the expansion to "IMAX" during the fight scene. Next I immediately watched the fight scene with the scope disk. Wow, what a let down after watching the "IMAX" version, so not a gimmick since unlike a 16:9 presentation you don't lose a bit of width information and gain height information. You should give it a go in your "CIH+IMAX" and invite some friends over and ask them which presentation they prefer. I know it will help me justify springing for the 3D if it also opens into IMAX since I'm the only one in the family who likes 3D now they can benefit from the purchase as well.
Great input and screen shots. You should post them on the other thread along with your reactions after watching both versions. That is exactly what I have been trying to get across over there with no luck. The extra area doesn’t have to be crammed full of stuff to give the feeling of area and immersion. Of course the movie isn’t lost without it but it adds realism.

Just be careful if you post it or they might label you a troll.

As to your first question yes adjusting screen size and seating distance and everything so the experience is all to scale is there a difference when the physical size of the screen is larger?

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #25 of 26 Old 07-20-2017, 09:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 1,795
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 662 Post(s)
Liked: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
You should post them on the other thread along with your reactions after watching both versions.

Just be careful if you post it or they might label you a troll.

As to your first question yes adjusting screen size and seating distance and everything so the experience is all to scale is there a difference when the physical size of the screen is larger?
No! I try not to post in that section because any difference of opinion on home presentation is seen as an attack. To bad there isn't a general section here where open discussions about home presentation as far as aspect ratios can occur.

On the first question, to me Dave's post seemed almost neutral on 110 vs 220, so I wasn't sure which way you were leaning.

In my case, I have two simple lightly treated rooms (151.5" 16:9/7.3 sound and 120" 16:9/5.2) with the same model projector (entry level 1080p). The smaller "real" screen image has more "pop" in terms of color, brightness and sharpness vs the larger on a screen painted wall, but it is only the loser (usually me) or losers (me and wife) of the "projector wars" in our home that ends up using the smaller screen/image. The larger image is just more theater like for us even with being able to vary seating distance in both rooms, so we will always take the 220" over the 110" or whatever the largest size fits in the next house.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	basement.jpg
Views:	6
Size:	117.8 KB
ID:	2248713  

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-gen...eap-build.html
Epson HC3700/HC2000; Screen - 151.5" 16:9/TV or 143.5" 2.35:1/HT at a seating distance of 13/14 feet; Yamaha RXV675 for 7.4; Speakers - Infinity Primus; Subs - 3 Polk PSW10s, 1 BIC F12; Headphones - 4 JVC wireless; Sony 3D Blu-ray player/six pairs 3D glasses.
steve1106 is offline  
post #26 of 26 Old 07-20-2017, 09:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
action_jackson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,205
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 353 Post(s)
Liked: 131
My first screen that I put together was 92 inches back in 05. I sent some pictures and was telling my parents about it and they wanted to go with a front projection system at there place as well. So I made a trip out to visit over the summer and set them up with a 143 inch screen painted on the wall. I believe they sat around 17 - 18 foot back and I was at around 14 foot. The she sheer size of the screen as you enter the room left an immediate impression! I can't really put words to it but the bigger screen definitely gave a different perspective closer to that of being at a theater than what I was seeing at home on the 92" screen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Epson Home Cinema 3010 Projector____Paradigm 9SE MK II Main LR
Yamaha RX-V667 AVR_______________Paradigm CC-270 V.3 Center
Emotiva UPA-5 Amplifier______________Dual Stereo Integrity 18" Infinite Baffle
Sony BDP-570 Blu Ray_______________DIY Sound Group Volt 10
action_jackson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP

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