What is Your Viewing Distance Relative to Screen Height? - Page 3 - 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 302 37.38%
HD—About 3 times the screen height 216 26.73%
HD—More than 3 times the screen height 174 21.53%
UHD/4K—Less than 1.5 times the screen height 16 1.98%
UHD/4K—About 1.5 times the screen height 31 3.84%
UHD/4K—More than 1.5 times the screen height 69 8.54%
Voters: 808. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 87Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 09:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Red99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 1,287
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 775 Post(s)
Liked: 416
Im 10 or 11 feet from a 64 inch plasma. Too lazy to measure the height and exact distance. But I would guess close to 4:1


Red99 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 09:45 PM
 
More is Better's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 1,371
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 620 Post(s)
Liked: 344
My eyes are anywhere between 72" and 96" from a 66" high 16:9 HD screen. (135"diagonal 66x118)


1.1:1 if I'm sitting forward
1.5:1 if I'm leaning back


I definitely notice differences in source quality. Blu-ray looks great, SD channels not so much.

Last edited by More is Better; 06-22-2015 at 09:58 PM.
More is Better is offline  
post #63 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 10:41 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
You simply need a smaller screen, that's all.
That's blasphemy!
Madaeel is offline  
 
post #64 of 212 Old 06-22-2015, 11:20 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
That's blasphemy!
But I was only serious.

165", ...180", some of you here are very close to 200".
NorthSky is offline  
post #65 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 02:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,781
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 834 Post(s)
Liked: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeAB View Post
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

While that is true, it's also true that digital, even domestic, usually provides a better image than film due to the lower quality of bulk release prints and many runs through the gate. It's visually easy to spot in commercial theatres. The 3xSH recommended by Fox back in the 50s was based on the crossover point between immersion (sitting closer) and image quality - the visibility of reducing image quality caused by film grain, scratches etc and film projector mechanics the closer you sat. Immersion is considered good, artefacts bad. None of that exists with digital (projector focus does however), though domestic HD isn't perfect either. Lens quality can of course be an issue. High quality anamorphics are usually better quality than the projector prime lens.

THX revisited film quality and came up with their (still current) recommendations of 40 degrees for 16:9 and 52 for scope (when viewed from the same seat), and that's including domestic set ups. Ioan Allen the Dolby vice president has alluded to much the same (white paper available).


Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeAB View Post
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.
Then you'll know THXs TAP and their certification process require compliance to standards, many of which are SMPTE, so it's not as if they are substandard. The opposite is probably true since multiplexes are not spending money on presentation, but getting bums on seats and generating revenue. No anamorphics, no masking and no attention to presentation. THX would ensure a better image and presentation due to ensuring conformation to standards. Commercial theatre, by and large is not the standard we should be looking to IMHO as it's usually poor and we can do much better at home.

I would think most people here would not like to see pixels, and I'm one of them. Image artefacts take me out of the movie so I ensure I don't have any. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Set up is key.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeAB View Post
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.
Those seating distances work well for the home too in my experience (as do THX since they recommend 2.4 x SH as their optimal) - most movies come via a 2k DI and at home we have similar resolution. Admitted the rest of the image is not to DCI standards, but attention to set up should ensure a good image and multiplexes are hardly the go to reference. I agree that setting up a theatre is more science than art - that's why we are on this forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeAB View Post
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.
We're all different and have a choice - your choice is best for you, but not for everyone. Some prefer more immersion based on closer seating than other parameters. That's why there is a range of seating distance in all the guidelines, and not one of them tells you where to sit. They're just recommendations and you choose what works best for you. We're also allowed to change our choice if we wish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeAB View Post
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 exceptionally smooth, 2.35:1 Da-Lite 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.

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

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"
Is that prime lens better quality than an ISCO III?

3 times the height of which aspect ratio? 16:9 or scope?

Do you realise that if you use the zoom method, you are effectively moving your seating 33% closer (or further back) and changing the image height to seating distance ratio due to enlarging/reducing the pixels when zooming from one aspect ratio to another, since in reality, you are always watching the 16:9 image and just making it larger or smaller to fit the letterboxed part of the scope image onto the screen.

Gary
rossandwendy likes this.

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 #66 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 03:55 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
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
Oh, that's directed at me. Well, you can't possibly believe you're seeing the correct perspective at 2:1. I tried it and, at the edges, the steepness is already too much, the image flatness is accentuated and the illusion of depth is gone.
You're free to sit wherever you want, but don't suggest that's where we're supposed to. The image should look like through a window, not a wall poster.

Last edited by Optimus_Fine; 06-23-2015 at 04:34 AM.
Optimus_Fine is offline  
post #67 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 04:33 AM
Newbie
 
Akupro's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 0
My screen is 120" and my "eyes" distance is 4.35m so I'm pretty much where I'm supossed to be for watching HD content (4.5m) BUT does this mean that when I replace my current projector for an UHD in the future I'll have to move the couch 2 meters closer to the screen??

120" /2 = 60"
60" = 1.5m
1.5 * 1.5 = 2.25m

That makes no sense to me because I'd be watching the screen so close I would have to move my head to see what's happening on the sides.
Akupro is offline  
post #68 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 05:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
6athome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 521 Post(s)
Liked: 159
Now if I could get my wife to read this second article! I told her I need a 80 inch TV based on our viewing distance of 9 feet.
6athome is offline  
post #69 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 05:17 AM
Advanced Member
 
slarity's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 528
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 153 Post(s)
Liked: 74
1. 126" (first row)
2. 55" Height
4. 2.29:1 Ratio


Voted less than 3:1 in the pole.
slarity is offline  
post #70 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 06:04 AM
Member
 
BLWTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 12
2.8
BLWTX is offline  
post #71 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 06:47 AM
Member
 
hk2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: VIRGINIA
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Scott,
You wrote this not too long ago, why the changes? UHD is hardly even a niche as of yet- up-scaling not withstanding!!!
hk2000 is offline  
post #72 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 08:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,871
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1045 Post(s)
Liked: 443
So in summary you have to sit way too close to the screen to benefit fully from 4k.

Reasons I don't care about 4k
Stridsvognen and Bruce2019 like this.
Ruined is offline  
post #73 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 08:33 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,022
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 975 Post(s)
Liked: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by hk2000 View Post
Scott,
You wrote this not too long ago, why the changes? UHD is hardly even a niche as of yet- up-scaling not withstanding!!!
The article from 2012 mentions using 1.2 to 1.6 times your screen diagonal as your viewing distance. If the screen height is half of the screen diagonal for a 16:9 screen then this converts to 2.4 to 3.2 times the screen height. Note that this is pretty much in line with the "3 times your screen height" recommendation mentioned in this thread. So, really, nothing has changed with regards to the recommendations for HD displays. All that has changed is the addition of a recommended viewing distance for UHD displays.

Last edited by HockeyoAJB; 06-23-2015 at 08:40 AM.
HockeyoAJB is offline  
post #74 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 08:38 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,022
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 975 Post(s)
Liked: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
So in summary you have to sit way too close to the screen to benefit fully from 4k.

Reasons I don't care about 4k
In most cases, yes. However, one does not need to get the full benefit of 4k in order for 4k to offer some benefit over 2k. All one has to do to get some benefit is sit closer than 3 screen heights.
HockeyoAJB is offline  
post #75 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 08:46 AM
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 mo949 View Post
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).
Agreed. I made the mistake of watching "Titanic's" re-release in 3D from about the 5th row. The film completely filled my field of vision to the point of being overwhelming. For me, if an image takes up any more than about 20-25 degrees of vision it's too much. If I have to turn my head to see everything on screen, it's too much.

---
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 #76 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 08:57 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Michael9009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 1,062
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 317 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Talking

133 in diagonal, 16:9, HD Progressive 1.3 screen
1080p Blu-Ray on 4K Sony projector
12 ft viewing distance
2.2:1 viewing distance to screen height ratio
Superb!
Michael9009 is offline  
post #77 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 08:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Michael9009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 1,062
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 317 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Epic!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by classicrecording View Post
my sitting distance is where the wife says she wants the couch.
Michael9009 is offline  
post #78 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 09:56 AM
Member
 
NewConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Smile

My viewing ratio is close to 2.7 ; 1.78 screen of 100" diag. and my eye's are about 11' from the screen. This allows my main front left & right speakers position to result in an equilateral triangle in my present 5.1 audio setup. I'm happy with the look and sound. When they fully sort out the newer immersive surround and are able to implement all of high res. & HDR & higher color gamut into front PJ, will I make (purchase products) changes. Seems like it will be a couple of years, I can easily hold out till then!
NewConnection is offline  
post #79 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 10:26 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,022
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 975 Post(s)
Liked: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmoNut View Post
Agreed. I made the mistake of watching "Titanic's" re-release in 3D from about the 5th row. The film completely filled my field of vision to the point of being overwhelming. For me, if an image takes up any more than about 20-25 degrees of vision it's too much. If I have to turn my head to see everything on screen, it's too much.
You are not alone in this. And yet, I can't help but notice that nobody walks around with blinders on in real life in order to avoid seeing things that are outside of the optimal 20-25% off center viewing area. Amazingly, we don't get motion sick despite this. How do we explain this apparent contradiction?

I think a lot of it has to do with the way our brain interprets the information provided by multiple senses in order to establish our orientation relative to our surroundings. Seeing the ground rush up at you as you are falling in real life feels a lot different than watching a video of the ground rushing up at you as you sit still. If the video only occupies a portion of your field of view (meaning that you can still see your real surroundings) then it is easy for your brain to determine what's real and what's not. Conversely, if the video completely envelopes your field of view then it makes it harder for your brain to correctly interpret the information it is receiving as your eyes are telling it one thing while your other senses are telling it something else. If you were truly falling, you would feel a sense of weightlessness.

Going from 2k to 4k isn't simply a matter of increased detail. It's supposed to be about increased immersion as well. However, in order to be convincing, and, in order to avoid causing anything from mild discomfort to full blown vertigo in fast action scenes, care needs to be taken. The movie makers can't just take a film with imagery intended to occupy X% of your field of view, scale it up to occupy Y% of your field of view, and expect the experience to translate properly. If we are shooting for a greater sense of immersion with 4K/UHD then the field of view of the camera, the motion of the camera, and our other senses must be considered. Changes to the way scenes are shot may need to be made in some cases.
HockeyoAJB is offline  
post #80 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 11:29 AM
Senior Member
 
jefny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 31
I'm about 13 feet from my screen (152 inches) and my screen height is 52.5" which is approximately 3 to 1. If I could, I would have put in a bigger screen (105 inches diagonal)-the bigger the better but I am satisfied.

John
jefny is offline  
post #81 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 11:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
nuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: CA, USA
Posts: 1,283
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked: 140
I'm sorry Scott, but this UTTER NONSENSE and the ITU is utterly out to lunch on this. (ITU-R BT.1845-1)

The "optimum" viewing distance is not the distance at which the Rayleigh Criterion for human vision becomes limited to individually resolve pixels.

The *OPTIMUM* viewing distance is the one that provides the greatest human enjoyment of the displayed content. By that respect, the optimum distance doesn't change as long as it is at least GREATER than the LIMITING resolution.

The distance the ITU is putting forth is not the optimum, but the *LIMITING* distance. If you are *closer* than this distance, the human eye is capable of distinguishing and perceiving artifacts of pixilation.

The whole point of a TV display is to *not* see the artifacts of pixelation.

Thus 4k vs. 1080p means you can enjoy a larger screen in the same distance. It doesn't mean you have to sit closer to the 4k to enjoy.

The entire premise that "optimum" occurs at the distance where individual pixels can be resolved is utterly preposterous.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post


The optimum viewing distance depends on the screen size and resolution. The calculation is simple, and the result might surprise you.

As many of you know, your screen size, resolution, and optimum viewing distance are related. According to the ITU (International Telecommunications Union), the optimum viewing distance is 3 times the screen height for HD and 1.5 times the screen height for UHD/4K.

Of course, the size of virtually all video screens is specified by their diagonal measurement—after all, it's the largest linear measurement, and we all know that bigger numbers are better, right? But to calculate the optimum seating distance, you need to know the height of the screen, which is simple enough. For 16:9 screens, the height is about half the diagonal measurement; for 2.35:1 screens, the height is about 0.4 times the diagonal measurement.

For example, a 16:9 screen measuring 70 inches diagonally has a height of about 35 inches, so the optimum viewing distance for HD is 105 inches or 8.75 feet; for UHD/4K images, the optimum viewing distance is 52.5 inches or 4.4 feet. These viewing distances are the same for a 2.35:1 screen measuring 89 inches diagonally, since the height of such a screen is still 35 inches. Of course, most 2.35 screens are larger than that, so the optimum viewing distance is greater as the screen size increases.

To calculate the ratio of your viewing distance to screen height, follow these steps:

1. Measure your viewing distance in inches;
2. Multiply the screen's diagonal measurement in inches by 0.5 for a 16:9 screen or 0.4 for a 2.35:1 screen to calculate the screen's height;
3. Divide your viewing distance by your screen's height in inches;
4. The result is the ratio of your viewing distance to your screen height.

So, how far do you sit from your primary screen?

Like AVS Forum on Facebook
Follow AVS Forum on Twitter
+1 AVS Forum on Google+

nuke
nuke is offline  
post #82 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 01:26 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 nuke View Post
I'm sorry Scott, but this UTTER NONSENSE and the ITU is utterly out to lunch on this. (ITU-R BT.1845-1)

The "optimum" viewing distance is not the distance at which the Rayleigh Criterion for human vision becomes limited to individually resolve pixels.

The *OPTIMUM* viewing distance is the one that provides the greatest human enjoyment of the displayed content. By that respect, the optimum distance doesn't change as long as it is at least GREATER than the LIMITING resolution.

The distance the ITU is putting forth is not the optimum, but the *LIMITING* distance. If you are *closer* than this distance, the human eye is capable of distinguishing and perceiving artifacts of pixilation.

The whole point of a TV display is to *not* see the artifacts of pixelation.

Thus 4k vs. 1080p means you can enjoy a larger screen in the same distance. It doesn't mean you have to sit closer to the 4k to enjoy.

The entire premise that "optimum" occurs at the distance where individual pixels can be resolved is utterly preposterous.
Being able to follow the immediate and greater context in such a discussion prevents much confusion and wasted melodrama.
GeorgeAB is offline  
post #83 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 01:55 PM
Member
 
TurboTropic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Family room 50" HD TV at 14 feet = 1:6.8

Basement 106" HD Projector (16:9) at 14 feet = 1:2.64

Optoma HD131xe on 106" Accuscreens 16:9 pull-down screen
Marantz SR7008 AVR / XBox One / Sony BDP-5200 / Mac Mini / Synology 212j NAS / Pioneer BDP-320 (used as CD player) / Kodi box
ELAC B5 fronts / ELAC UC5 centre / Polk Monitor30 Series II heights / Monoprice in-wall 5-1/4 Inch surrounds / SVS SB12-NSD sub
TurboTropic is offline  
post #84 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 02:16 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
nuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: CA, USA
Posts: 1,283
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeAB View Post
Being able to follow the immediate and greater context in such a discussion prevents much confusion and wasted melodrama.
What exactly is your point?

nuke
nuke is offline  
post #85 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 02:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,781
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 834 Post(s)
Liked: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimus_Fine View Post
Oh, that's directed at me. Well, you can't possibly believe you're seeing the correct perspective at 2:1. I tried it and, at the edges, the steepness is already too much, the image flatness is accentuated and the illusion of depth is gone.
You're free to sit wherever you want, but don't suggest that's where we're supposed to. The image should look like through a window, not a wall poster.
That's not my experience.

Gary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is online now  
post #86 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 02:42 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
But I was only serious.

165", ...180", some of you here are very close to 200".
Haha I know you were. I prayed to the large screen gods they would forgive your transgression and they told me they would forgive and forget as long as I went up to 200".

Honestly if I could go that large I would. I LOVE looking side to side. I do it all the time in everyday life so I think I can handle it occasionally during a 2-3 hr movie. I want my screen to take up my entire field of vision to make it feel real. I really don't give a **** about any metrics or standards. I like what I like. It's called preference. All my friends love it too. Only my wife needs a minute or two to adjust. One guy on AVS told me 10ft from anything more than 106" is too much. If I had a 106" screen I wouldn't even call it a theater.
rossandwendy likes this.
Madaeel is offline  
post #87 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 03:12 PM
Senior Member
 
Noman74656's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Posts: 420
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicrecording View Post
My sitting distance is where the wife says she wants the couch.
Ditto

"In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments; there are consequences."Robert Green Ingersoll

Noman74656's Martycube Builds
My Theater
Noman74656 is offline  
post #88 of 212 Old 06-23-2015, 03:22 PM
KOF
AVS Forum Special Member
 
KOF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,169
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Liked: 227
I must have the record for having the smallest viewing distance formula : It's about 1.4, a little smaller than even the UHD recommedation when my 50 inches plasma is 1080p. But this is just average and my viewing distance changes with contents. For DVDs, yes, I do keep to 3:1 because I hate scaling artifact. For poor quality HD broadcast/streaming, it's about 2:1. But for UHD demos, (Samsung/LG demos playing on showrooms) I sit even closer, slightly more than 2 fts. Why? Because I can discern more details on those extremely high bitrate, the benefits outweigh SDE/downscaling artifacts. Of course, closer than that and the illusion breaks apart into pixels and that's where UHD TVs would show their advantage, but 2 fts for 50 inches display is already pushing it, any closer and my eyes will not be able to fill 100% FOV, so the UHD advantage is hardly relevant.

Bitrate quality is much more important than resolution when it comes to calculating ideal viewing distance. Only if there is a way to quantify it somewhat. grr..
KOF is offline  
post #89 of 212 Old 06-24-2015, 12:11 AM
Advanced Member
 
James Freeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 517 Post(s)
Liked: 341
I like less than 3 times the height of actual movie, especially with film shot with wide angle lenses.

Take How The West Was Won for example, if you sit more than 2.5 times the height you are missing detail.

James Freeman is offline  
post #90 of 212 Old 06-24-2015, 05:53 AM
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
Another thought I had about this is whether 1080p or UHD is "enough" at some ideal viewing distance. I think that over the next few years you'll find that discussion to be irrelevant. As more TVs -- probably only the UHD ones -- come out with HDR and expanded color gamuts, resolution will be way down the list of considerations. Maybe UHD is better than 1080p. Great, but enhanced image characteristics will trump that as time goes on.

That's why my next TV will have HDR and expanded color. Seems pointless to buy anything that doesn't.
Mark12547 likes this.

---
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
 
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