What is Your Viewing Distance Relative to Screen Height? - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
View Poll Results: What is Your Viewing Distance Relative to Screen Height?
HD—Less than 3 times the screen height 303 37.41%
HD—About 3 times the screen height 216 26.67%
HD—More than 3 times the screen height 174 21.48%
UHD/4K—Less than 1.5 times the screen height 16 1.98%
UHD/4K—About 1.5 times the screen height 31 3.83%
UHD/4K—More than 1.5 times the screen height 70 8.64%
Voters: 810. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 87Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 02:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
CosmoNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 625
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 355 Post(s)
Liked: 291
Currently living with a 42" Panny plasma with primary viewing distance of TWELVE FEET. Yeah. 6.67x screen height.

My goal is to get a 65" TV within the next year or so which will still only get me down to 4.3x screen height, but that's better.

We rent an old, oddly-shaped house from my in-laws, so we got what we got space wise. I've done the measurements and a 65" is the absolute largest I can fit into the space we have for a TV ... and that's about the only place we can put our main TV because of how the house needs to be arranged to optimize space.

Now to come up with the money for the new TV ...

---
Striving to live life in high dynamic range and ultra high definition.
Samsung UN65JS8500 / Denon AVR-X4000 / 5.1 w/ Mixed Speakers / Sony BDP-BX59 / TiVo Premiere XL / Apple TV (3rd gen) / Fire TV (1st gen) / Xbox 360 R2-D2 Edition
KC area / Father of 4 / Husband / Video Producer / Skeptic
CosmoNut is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 02:40 PM
Senior Member
 
johnnymacIII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 275
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
Liked: 51
For everyday TV viewing 26 degree viewing angle seems to be the sweet spot for me. For movie watching, 33-35 degrees on a 16:9 works great.
johnnymacIII is offline  
post #33 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 02:43 PM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,653
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3557
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmoNut View Post
Currently living with a 42" Panny plasma with primary viewing distance of TWELVE FEET. Yeah. 6.67x screen height.
My goal is to get a 65" TV within the next year or so which will still only get me down to 4.3x screen height, but that's better.
We rent an old, oddly-shaped house from my in-laws, so we got what we got space wise. I've done the measurements and a 65" is the absolute largest I can fit into the space we have for a TV ... and that's about the only place we can put our main TV because of how the house needs to be arranged to optimize space.

Now to come up with the money for the new TV ...
You have a job?
NorthSky is offline  
 
post #34 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 02:48 PM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,653
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3557
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnymacIII View Post
For everyday TV viewing 26 degree viewing angle seems to be the sweet spot for me. For movie watching, 33-35 degrees on a 16:9 works great.
http://myhometheater.homestead.com/v...alculator.html --> I agree with you, between 30 and 36° field of view (THX movies; Star Wars).
NorthSky is offline  
post #35 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 02:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Vaan Janne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 292
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Pretty stupid topic. seating distance is where ever you feel like it´s right. I tend to feel everytime it´s time to make a screen i need to make a bigger screen than last time. and it´s kind the same thing if
you would move the sofa closer to the screen. so i guess at some point the too low resolution is gonna bother you or something else but i think you just gotta go with your gut feeling.
Barry C likes this.
Vaan Janne is offline  
post #36 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 03:01 PM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,653
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3557
But for many folks the size of the screen matters a lot; the bigger the better.

But I'm 100% with you; simply move your chair closer to a smaller screen size, voila...you got instantly bigger without spending a single cent.
NorthSky is offline  
post #37 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 03:16 PM
Member
 
qwho51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San DIego
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Currently, I am 3.6 viewing ratio from my 60" plasma.

RustyBones
qwho51 is offline  
post #38 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 03:21 PM
Advanced Member
 
CosmoNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 625
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 355 Post(s)
Liked: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
You have a job?
Yes, but my wife doesn't and we have four kids. So ... it might be that our new TV will have to wait on next year's tax refund.

---
Striving to live life in high dynamic range and ultra high definition.
Samsung UN65JS8500 / Denon AVR-X4000 / 5.1 w/ Mixed Speakers / Sony BDP-BX59 / TiVo Premiere XL / Apple TV (3rd gen) / Fire TV (1st gen) / Xbox 360 R2-D2 Edition
KC area / Father of 4 / Husband / Video Producer / Skeptic
CosmoNut is offline  
post #39 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 03:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
Luke M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 934
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 338 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Good poll! There's a lot that goes into "optimal" viewing distance besides display technology. Like, what degree of immersiveness do you prefer (do you like to sit in the first row of a movie theater, or the back)? And what is the content provider targeting? If the content lacks wide shots, then you won't want to sit as close, regardless of resolution.

As an example, when watching football games, I don't really need more fine detail. There's plenty already. What I want is to see more of the field. So my optimal viewing distance doesn't depend on whether the broadcast is HD, UHD, or UUUUUHD. It depends on how the broadcast is framed.
Luke M is offline  
post #40 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 03:49 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,458
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1772 Post(s)
Liked: 1693
i think i'm around 3times the height. whatever the equivalent height of a 100" 16:9 screen from about 16feet back works out to. it's about 12 feet from the front row, and sometimes i'll do that too.

for me, the viewing distance no longer has ANYTHING to do with resolution. 1080p from the front row looks fantastic, no issues with pixelation or screen door effect at all. i do have screen texture problems though, and that's why i usually sit further back. i need a new screen, but i'm too close to moving to waste money on that now. anyway, i used to have a 120" screen and went smaller(well i went to CIH) because it was too overwhelming. i don't mind going wider, but the height of a 100" screen from about 12feet back is 'ideal' for my viewing. it could be 16k resolution and i wouldn't want to move closer.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1130K, 7.1/5.1.2 audio
Sources: HTPC(Enby), PS3, XBOX360, Wii
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #41 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 04:20 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 14,376
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2130 Post(s)
Liked: 1844
I use a projector with zoom control/pre-sets with automated masking to amount to a Variable Size Image system.
I sit about 10 feet from the image.

My screen alters 16:9 shape between 80" diagonal to around 135" diagonal. The 2:35:1 image ranges from about 99" wide to 125" wide. 4:3 ARs range from around 84" to 100."

With apologies, I'm too lazy to do the math for viewing angle for all those. :-) But it ensures I'm getting the best combination of immersion and image quality (dependent on the source) I can manage for each image.
R Harkness is offline  
post #42 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 04:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mo949's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,932
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
I agree. Viewing distance should be chosen based on field of view, not resolution.
100% agree.

Halving the distance based on resolution alone without any concern for how much more cross-eyed we'll get is about as stupid as all of a sudden re-writing the book on brightness, eye-strain, and visual dynamic range perception in such a way where you throw out everything that's come before and start to claim that you can make things 100time brighter at home and viewed at 6ft closer (as the numbers workout to in my case).
Optimus_Fine likes this.
mo949 is offline  
post #43 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 04:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
kriktsemaj99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 6,777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 665 Post(s)
Liked: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeAB View Post
The science of imaging has recognized the limits of average human vision when resolving fine detail in a video picture. The recommendations for image size/viewing distance published by imaging industry standards bodies have this in mind. Average sharpness detail recognition in humans is a thoroughly quantified and verified principle, or equaling one arc/minute.

Yes, but for reasons other than pure resolution the recommendations only really hold up to HD (that famous resolution chart originally only had 480/720/1080p on it). Even with UHD you can't take in the whole picture at once at the recommended viewing angle, so it's impractical. And a display with 8K or higher resolution is utterly pointless (except maybe for applications where you can walk right up to the screen to check out fine detail, but that's not what we do watching a movie).
Billy Boden likes this.
kriktsemaj99 is offline  
post #44 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 04:46 PM
Member
 
Nighthawk68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 18
4.26:1 here with 55VT50

Denon AVR-X4200, Panasonic TCP-55VT50, OPPO BDP-103, DirecTV HR44-700, Roku 4, Apple TV 4.
Polk Audio RTi-A9, RTi-A7, RTi-A3, CSi-A6 & DSW PRO 660
Nighthawk68 is offline  
post #45 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 04:54 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 2,228
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 866 Post(s)
Liked: 306
140" 16:9
seating is 120"

I've always liked to sit about a 1/3 distance back at the theater.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #46 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 05:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Orbitron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 503 Post(s)
Liked: 389
Custom built dedicated theater - eyeballs are 9'6" from a 92" 2.35:1 screen. The seating distance is also optimal for the front tower speakers that flank the screen.
Orbitron is offline  
post #47 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 05:18 PM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,653
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3557
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmoNut View Post
Yes, but my wife doesn't and we have four kids. So ... it might be that our new TV will have to wait on next year's tax refund.
I see. ...Four kids, wow, congrats! ...That's a wide/wild field of view.
NorthSky is offline  
post #48 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 05:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Soulburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,221
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 382
65" Plasma, 8.5 to 9 feet. Works out to 3.0-3.3x screen height. Chosen by what feels best, not any kind of room limitation.

Also, we need to consider our speaker placement. I certainly don't want to be 4 feet from my screen or my speakers.
Soulburner is offline  
post #49 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 05:48 PM
Senior Member
 
Madaeel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 324
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 64
12ft from 165"
Madaeel is offline  
post #50 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 05:58 PM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,653
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madaeel View Post
12ft from 165"
You simply need a smaller screen, that's all.
NorthSky is offline  
post #51 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 05:59 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,784
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 834 Post(s)
Liked: 532
Around 2 x screen heights for me with a 2.35 screen.

THX recommend 2.4 x SH for optimal viewing for both tv and commercial, so they don't feel there's an issue with closer than 3xSH. CEDIA do have different documents for tv and projected images though, and tell you which one to use. I believe the tv version recommends 3xSH (along similar lines to what GeorgeAB has already said) but the projected version (CEB23) says the same as SMPTE - 3xSH plus or minus 1SH, with client preference being paramount (and even suggests they see where they like to sit in a commercial theatre).

Sony's 1,5 x SH for 4k doesn't seem very practical (except for commercial IMAX maybe) - at that distance if you were sat in the center of the screen, the vertical viewing angle is at around 35 degrees IIRC which is the maximum recommended (and where THX say the front row should be in their certified theatres). For comfortable viewing it should be around 15 degrees. If you wanted less than 35 degrees vertical with 4k, you'll have to lower the screen onto or into the floor, or raise the seating.

We have binocular vision of around 120 degrees, and 2 x SH for scope is only 61.8 degrees (less for 16:9), so still not taxing our vision that much - a little eye movement needed maybe, but still not in the realms of having to move your head. Movies that have scenes with people at the extremes are composed and designed that way. If the director wanted them closer in your field of view, and knowing how close people sit in a commercial theatre, he would have placed them closer together, so he's placed them at the edges for a reason.

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 online now  
post #52 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 06:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jevans64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Madison, Alabama
Posts: 1,222
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 162
I'm about as close to 3:1 ratio as one can get. I actually picked my screen size based on how far I sit from the set. I'm 109" out from a 73" set. I'm going to get a slightly larger UHD set ( 75" is the biggest I can squeeze between the DefTech BP7000 towers and still have an unobstructed hallway ) but the distance won't change since my speaker placement for Atmos/DTS:X is set.

Denon AVR X7200WA, Emotiva XPR-5, Emotiva XPA-7, Sony XBR 75" 850C, Oppo UDP-203, Roku Ultra.
DefTech BP7000SC (L/R), CLR3000 (C), SM55 (FH), UIW BPZ/A (SB), UIW 75 (TM).
JBL L7 (Sur), EoSone RSR 350 (RH).

PC 2.1 setup. Emotiva Stealth 6, SVS SB16-Ultra sub, Emotiva DC-1 DAC.
jevans64 is offline  
post #53 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 06:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
bgarner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cambridge, Ontario
Posts: 942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
So if I sit in the middle of a theater to watch a movie regardless of which theater I go to, does that mean it is approx. 2.5 viewing distance? I would imagine that 3x is the back of the theater and anything less than 2x would be the front row?

Is that a fair assumption?

Brian

Thanks and have a good day!

Brian Garner
-----------
XBox Gametag: IceSavior
PS3 Tag: IceSavior
- feel free to add me to your friends list
bgarner is offline  
post #54 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 06:59 PM
 
ellisr63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,470
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 993 Post(s)
Liked: 414
1.5 times the screen height with a 180" diagonal (masked) 2.35 screen.
ellisr63 is offline  
post #55 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 07:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
darthray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Cold lake Alberta Canada
Posts: 3,994
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1181 Post(s)
Liked: 1086
Carada screen and JVC HD projector


Aspect ratio 1.78:1
Sitting distance 126"
Height 56"


If I follow the instruction right, I came-up with 2 for the answer.
So I guess, I am ready for a UHD projector when they come available for a descent price and when the software become available.


For the meantime, I would not put my-self further for a viewing distance, since I am more than happy with the picture results.
If I remember right (few years has past), my first screen was around 90" as per THX recommendation and when I switch to bigger, it was, why did I not do that sooner


Ray
darthray is offline  
post #56 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 07:10 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 13,525
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2052 Post(s)
Liked: 1677
I sit about 9.5 feet back from 9 foot wide 2:35:1 screen with FP...and about 8 feet back from my 51" plasma. Both 1080p.
DavidHir is online now  
post #57 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 07:38 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mark12547's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Salem, Oregon, United States, Earth
Posts: 2,112
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 767 Post(s)
Liked: 526
When I purchased my first HDTV (46"), I paced off the viewing distance at home so that at the store I could pace off the same distance and then look at the screens, and 46" seemed the most comfortable for me and still within my budget. My friend thought I was picking a TV that was too large, and still thought so when he helped me place the TV in position, but a couple years later I heard he got a TV about the same size.

When I replaced that HDTV with the 50-in, I actually went shopping for 46-in but got free shipping by stepping up to 50-in, and once home decided that the larger size wasn't bad at all (except for DVDs of shows where the best source material is atrocious).

50-in diagonal with a 16:9 aspect ratio -> 24.5-in height.
Viewing distance is approximately 7 feet = 84 in.
84 in. / 24.5 in = 3.4, which is close enough for me to click on "HD—About 3 times the screen height".
This is the main TV for watching Blu-ray, DVD, and Netflix streams.
(My typical theater viewing location is about 60% back from the screen.)


Running the calculations on my 32-in bedroom TV with 8 to 10 feet of viewing distance end up with viewing_distance/screen_height of 6.1 to 7.6, but since it is used almost exclusively for cable, the distance lessens the impact of compression artifacts. I think that is consistent with a later post by Gary:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
Normal tv has variable image quality, often down to bit rate. If you watch primarily Blu Ray it should be less of a problem.
For example, the image I attached was from streaming "Code Red: The Rubicon Conspiracy" (2001) from Netflix. It was a made-for-TV movie and apparently the stream was from an interlaced signal (video tape?) since the scan lines are way too blatant when there is motion, such as this hand grasping the visor of a hat as the person is moving across the screen. That's the worst example, but the whole movie is non-stop jagged edges when there is any movement. This is where I sometimes wish I could view selected Netflix streams on my smaller TV instead of this larger TV.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Code_Red_480i.jpg
Views:	556
Size:	261.9 KB
ID:	797714  

My very humble setup:
Spoiler!

Last edited by Mark12547; 06-27-2015 at 12:20 AM.
Mark12547 is offline  
post #58 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 07:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
lespurgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 2,537
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 52
I've always said 1.5 to 2 times width is about right. That is right in the range of 3 times height. For UHD, perhaps as near as 2xheight, but 1.5 height, no you can't keep the entire screen comfortably in your field of view.
lespurgeon is offline  
post #59 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 07:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
Billy Boden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Lexington Ky
Posts: 778
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 351 Post(s)
Liked: 249
~2:1 1080p 100in to screen, 52" Height

AT woven screen, Equilateral triangle with the L/R speakers.
Billy Boden is offline  
post #60 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 07:59 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
GeorgeAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver, CO metro area, www.cinemaquestinc.com
Posts: 3,664
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 260
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
Around 2 x screen heights for me with a 2.35 screen.

THX recommend 2.4 x SH for optimal viewing for both tv and commercial, so they don't feel there's an issue with closer than 3xSH. CEDIA do have different documents for tv and projected images though, and tell you which one to use. I believe the tv version recommends 3xSH (along similar lines to what GeorgeAB has already said) but the projected version (CEB23) says the same as SMPTE - 3xSH plus or minus 1SH, with client preference being paramount (and even suggests they see where they like to sit in a commercial theatre).

Sony's 1,5 x SH for 4k doesn't seem very practical (except for commercial IMAX maybe) - at that distance if you were sat in the center of the screen, the vertical viewing angle is at around 35 degrees IIRC which is the maximum recommended (and where THX say the front row should be in their certified theatres). For comfortable viewing it should be around 15 degrees. If you wanted less than 35 degrees vertical with 4k, you'll have to lower the screen onto or into the floor, or raise the seating.

We have binocular vision of around 120 degrees, and 2 x SH for scope is only 61.8 degrees (less for 16:9), so still not taxing our vision that much - a little eye movement needed maybe, but still not in the realms of having to move your head. Movies that have scenes with people at the extremes are composed and designed that way. If the director wanted them closer in your field of view, and knowing how close people sit in a commercial theatre, he would have placed them closer together, so he's placed them at the edges for a reason.

Gary
Here are some factors that reduce the human visual system's ability to detect pixel structure in a video image:
1. Motion in the image
2. Reduced image brightness (many projection systems have too large of a screen for the lumen output of the projector selected)
3. Three chip projectors with poor red, green, and blue chip alignment/registration (as much as +/- an entire pixel in some)
4. Lower cost anamorphic lenses in projection systems
5. Less than 20/20 visual acuity in the viewer
6. Poor lens quality in lower cost projectors
7. Projection screens that are textured, using a granulated high gain coating, perforations, or a woven material

I have been certified with THX since 2002 and was brought in years later as a consultant for the development of their calibrator certification program. Much of what THX has done over the decades has genuinely benefited the motion imaging industry and home entertainment. I have been an avid and vocal proponent of their efforts. However, we don't agree on their viewing distance recommendations. It's also worth pointing out that they are not a standards body, like SMPTE and the ITU. They are fundamentally a consulting service. It's my opinion that they value image width for a sense of immersion over image sharpness. For me, immersion is much more than image width. The quality of the picture has as much to do with eliciting the willing suspension of disbelief as size does. If I detect pixel structure in the image, it is a distraction for me.

The SMPTE recommendations regarding seating distances are for commercial cinema. We all recognize that cinema audiences are not all discriminating viewers who value the fine details of a well crafted and executed image. Image excellence is a science as well as an art. However, the dramatic impact of cinematic art is wholly enhanced and fostered by the best technical presentation, whether the audience is conscious of the technical details or not.

Over the decades of my enjoyment of cinema and avid study of its characteristics and myriad of components, I have grown more discriminating regarding picture quality. I appreciate a sharp, clear, well defined picture more now than in my youth. A more natural electronic image is a sharper image. I have actually found myself sitting progressively farther from the screen in a commercial cinema as I have aged. A soft image is not acceptable any more. I sit in the next to the last row at IMAX. The last row would be better, but then I end up under the back surround speakers instead of forward from them.

Many home cinemas I have visited have an unacceptably soft picture to me, caused by one or more of the factors in the above list. What I am used to viewing in my company's demo theater is very sharp. It has Joe Kane Productions designed, single chip, 1080p, DLP projector and JKP's exceptionally smooth, 2.35:1, 0.9 gain, Da-Lite Affinity screen. For CinemaScope movies, I use the zoom and shift method, rather than anamorphic, to preserve the exceptional lens clarity of the projector. I sit at three screen heights for this constant image height system.

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

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

Last edited by GeorgeAB; 06-28-2015 at 02:01 PM.
GeorgeAB is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Community News & Polls

Tags
frontpage , Polls

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