What is Your Viewing Distance Relative to Screen Height? - Page 7 - 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 294 37.64%
HD—About 3 times the screen height 211 27.02%
HD—More than 3 times the screen height 170 21.77%
UHD/4K—Less than 1.5 times the screen height 13 1.66%
UHD/4K—About 1.5 times the screen height 28 3.59%
UHD/4K—More than 1.5 times the screen height 65 8.32%
Voters: 781. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 83Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 204 Old 06-02-2016, 08:45 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Calgary Alberta
Posts: 67
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I was a little more scientific when I determined how far back to sit.


My wife and I went to a movie and using a laser measuring tape we measured from where we were sitting (~2/3 of the theatre back from the screen) to the mid point of the screen and to the screen side edge. Using the measurements and simple math it was close to 17.5 degrees. I applied this measurement at home and for our 115" screen (100" horizontal, 50" half horizontal length) which gave me 159" viewing distance which works out to almost 3x the hight of our screen.


Now that everything is built I am happy with the distance, I've sat closer on the floor and it's felt too close.
jgmac98 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 204 Old 06-02-2016, 08:53 AM
Senior Member
 
sarahb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norton, Ohio
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 162
The Amazing Range Of Viewing Distances That People Find Appropriate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy SLO View Post
I probably shouldn't have quoted his entire post because I agree with you on resolution and viewing distance. When I was quoting him I should have emphasized the following:

"The closer than 3x the screen height one sits, the greater the geometric distortion on the viewer's perception of the image.
Otherwise, you'd watch 16K content at a quarter of screen height without being able to resolve the entire composition, thus, just making an excercise in HT delusions."


I agree with the rest of your post and I'd say that it only confirms what I've said before. The "1.5x spec" works only for people with extremely large screens (I'd say even way beyond the 80" ones), unless you're the only one watching the content.

I can sit 1 meter away from my 4K TV and the picture will cover about as much of my FOV as a movie theater screen that can be more than 20 meters away. But I believe that we have an intuitive way of distinguishing the two scenarios and I think that most people would prefer to watch a movie on the latter. If I take it to the extreme - I can watch a movie on my phone at 5 inches, but it won't be nearly as immersive as watching it on the big screen. It simply comes down to scale.

Or maybe it doesn't really matter and it's my preference, but I simply don't feel comfortable sitting so close to the screen. The larger the screen = the larger the viewing distance. The ratio always remains the same, but I personally prefer as big a screen as possible so that I have breathing space between myself and the screen. If that makes sense to you.
Iggy SLO, I very much appreciate your response. To me the subject of what viewing distances various people find appropriate for watching movies or programs at home, is quite a fascinating one. On one website with more of an average consumer type of audience than AVS has, a gentleman seemed absolutely shocked that my wife and I view our 80 inch screen from about 9 and a half feet away. He said that he would need to view such a screen from a distance of about 14 feet, or greater. I informed him that neither my wife nor myself have any problem taking in the whole picture, without any need to move our eyes or heads from left to right. I have very good distance vision, and even having tried an 8 and a half foot distance with our front row moved up closer to the screen, gave me no problem, and the immersive effect with Blu-rays of films like Apocalypse Now, was terrific. But my wife, as well as half, or more, of our guests, who experienced that closer seating distance, felt that it was just too overwhelming. So I moved the front row back to a 9.5 foot screen to eye distance.

Many of my fellow AVS members may be familiar with a group of British A/V magazines that includes "WHAT HI FI? SOUND AND VISION" Back around 2008 or 2009, in one of those magazines from the UK, there was a test report on a 60 inch 1080p plasma, that was a Panasonic, if memory serves. That flat panel got a highly enthusiastic review, but what really stands out in my mind is what that test report's author said about what he considered to be a normal viewing distance for a flat panel of that size. The man said that many British consumers were living in "flats" that would be too small to allow proper use of such a 60 inch 1080p "telly".
That reviewer went on to state that most people would want to sit about 5 meters (16.5 feet) from a 60 inch display. I remember thinking, when reading that British test report, that the article's author must be a nut because at that time we had a 73 inch Mitsubishi Diamond Series DLP rear projection TV positioned 10.5 feet from our living room couch, and no one who watched that DLP set from that couch ever commented that the TV was too close. In fact, my step son and his wife enjoyed watching that 73 inch DLP from a love seat positioned along a side wall of that living room, that put the closer of the 2 of them no more than 6 to 6 and a half feet from the TV, and they both thought it looked great. And they were young people who didn't even need glasses for reading, nor for distance, of course, either.

And I just wanted to mention an American video display reviewer who has an opinion that is quite the opposite of his British counterpart. A few years ago, a video writer at C-NET, Gary Merson, if memory serves, (Actually, MY MEMORY DID NOT SERVE PERFECTLY, as rechecking that C-NET article just showed me that its AUTHOR was ACTUALLY Geoffrey Morrison, NOT Gary Merson) was describing how he watches TV. He noted that his 1080p front projection set-up has a screen that's 10 feet wide, but with an extra wide aspect ratio of 2.35 to 1, making it perfectly suited for movies shot in the wide Panavision process, or ones that were produced with the Cinemascope process that was common for movies made a number of decades ago. Anyway, when watching HD TV shows which, as we know, are presented in the less wide 16X9 (1.78 to 1) aspect ratio, Mr Morrison only uses the portion of his screen that gives him a 16X9 shaped picture, which results in an effective image size of 102 inches. (diagonally, of course) He went on to say that he regularly watches high def TV shows in that 102 inch size from just a 9 foot viewing distance, and that he finds that such TV viewing "is absolutely addicting."

Seriously doubt that I'd ever even want to watch well mastered 1080p Blu-rays on a large screen like Geoffrey Morrison has, at the close distance at which he sits. But that guy mentioning the viewing of 102 inch high def TV images from only 9 feet away, sure made quite an impression on me. And someday, when we have finally gone with UHD 4k, the much finer pixel structure that the UHD format brings with it, may well cause me to want to sit at least as close to a big screen as Mr Morrison already does now with 1080p. Anyway, in the meantime, whenever friends or family may start to indicate that I'm a little nuts for sometimes moving our front seating somewhat closer to the screen, it's nice to be able to quote someone like Geoffrey Morrison who is a lot more extreme on the subject of viewing distance for 1080p TVs or projection set-ups.

Mike Boone
Iggy SLO likes this.

Last edited by sarahb75; 06-03-2016 at 07:13 AM. Reason: update with note about a correction
sarahb75 is offline  
post #183 of 204 Old 06-02-2016, 12:08 PM
Senior Member
 
sarahb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norton, Ohio
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Exclamation Now That's An AVS Member Conducting A Cool, Very Useful Study

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgmac98 View Post
I was a little more scientific when I determined how far back to sit.


My wife and I went to a movie and using a laser measuring tape we measured from where we were sitting (~2/3 of the theatre back from the screen) to the mid point of the screen and to the screen side edge. Using the measurements and simple math it was close to 17.5 degrees. I applied this measurement at home and for our 115" screen (100" horizontal, 50" half horizontal length) which gave me 159" viewing distance which works out to almost 3x the hight of our screen.


Now that everything is built I am happy with the distance, I've sat closer on the floor and it's felt too close.
jgmac98, I think it's really cool that you undertook the effort to make those movie theater measurements and calculations based on those measurements. And since you measured about a 17.5 degree angle from the mid point of the movie theater's screen to it's side edge, I assume you mean then that the entire width of the screen presented an angle of twice that, meaning about 35 degrees of your horizontal field of view was occupied by that theater's screen, at the distance at which you and your wife were sitting.

And I want you to know jgmac98, that your calculations which led to your conclusion about how far to sit from your home theater screen to have it occupy that same 35 degree segment of your horizontal field of view, were some pretty damned accurate calculations.

I'm looking at the March 2010 issue of, the now defunct, Home Theater magazine. In an article on page 32 of that issue, it is stated that in order to achieve an angle that will take up 35 degrees of a person's field of view, he should multiply the width of his screen by 1.58. And your final determination of a 159 inch viewing distance from your 100 inch wide screen is literally the same as if you had used a value of 1.59 as the multiplier for your 100 inch wide screen. Really is so damned close to the formula that Home Theater's expert recommended.

And, BTW, in the February/March 2010 issue of Sound & Vision magazine, an article starting on page 16 states that to achieve the slightly wider angle of 36 degrees of one's field of view being occupied by a screen, a multiplier of only 1.54 is applied to the screen's width to arrive at the viewing distance that will yield that angle.

Anyway, jgmac98, I sure admire what you did, because all that I've ever done to arrive at things like the correct seating distance to experience a certain viewing angle, was to just go by the say so of the so called experts who write articles for publications like Sound & Vision, and the sadly departed, Home Theater.

Mike Boone

Last edited by sarahb75; 06-02-2016 at 12:11 PM. Reason: a lost word
sarahb75 is offline  
 
post #184 of 204 Old 06-02-2016, 12:41 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Calgary Alberta
Posts: 67
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahb75 View Post
jgmac98, I think it's really cool that you undertook the effort to make those movie theater measurements and calculations based on those measurements. And since you measured about a 17.5 degree angle from the mid point of the movie theater's screen to it's side edge, I assume you mean then that the entire width of the screen presented an angle of twice that, meaning about 35 degrees of your horizontal field of view was occupied by that theater's screen, at the distance at which you and your wife were sitting.

And I want you to know jgmac98, that your calculations which led to your conclusion about how far to sit from your home theater screen to have it occupy that same 35 degree segment of your horizontal field of view, were some pretty damned accurate calculations.

I'm looking at the March 2010 issue of, the now defunct, Home Theater magazine. In an article on page 32 of that issue, it is stated that in order to achieve an angle that will take up 35 degrees of a person's field of view, he should multiply the width of his screen by 1.58. And your final determination of a 159 inch viewing distance from your 100 inch wide screen is literally the same as if you had used a value of 1.59 as the multiplier for your 100 inch wide screen. Really is so damned close to the formula that Home Theater's expert recommended.

And, BTW, in the February/March 2010 issue of Sound & Vision magazine, an article starting on page 16 states that to achieve the slightly wider angle of 36 degrees of one's field of view being occupied by a screen, a multiplier of only 1.54 is applied to the screen's width to arrive at the viewing distance that will yield that angle.

Anyway, jgmac98, I sure admire what you did, because all that I've ever done to arrive at things like the correct seating distance to experience a certain viewing angle, was to just go by the say so of the so called experts who write articles for publications like Sound & Vision, and the sadly departed, Home Theater.

Mike Boone
Thanks Mike,


My wife can't visualize things very well, so the measurements at the theatre were initially taken so that she could get a feel for what it would feel like. It was after that I realized I could scale it down to my personal theatre.


You are correct, the full screen horizontal width would be 35 degrees. I did have to make some assumptions (such as the actual movie theatre I measured had a curved screen, and that I was able to hold the laser tape measure perfectly level). The actual measurements came out to 17.3 or 17.4 degrees so I rounded up to make life easy.


It's cool that it worked out to what your magazine article suggested.


At our distance you don't have to move your head/neck to watch movies, but it is still be enough to feel like you are at the actual movies.
jgmac98 is offline  
post #185 of 204 Old 06-06-2016, 06:05 AM
Advanced Member
 
SteveFred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vernon, WI(near Milwaukee)
Posts: 680
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 202 Post(s)
Liked: 265
The math can say one thing, but our eyes tell us another. I have a 180" wide(195.4 Diagonal) 2.37:1 Curved Screen(76" high) with my new theater I just finished. I sit 16' back and it is absolutely perfect(have watched 20 movies so far). Now that being said, my 2nd row is 22' back and some of my guest prefer that distance.
sarahb75 likes this.

New Theater pics
Theater Thread
JVC RS600/180"(195.4" Diagonal) Wide curved Seymour 2.37:1 XD/Marantz 8802A/Outlaw Amps 7900 & 5000, 7.2.4 all PSA set up 3 MTM210's / 8 MT110SR's / Dual t-18's
SteveFred is offline  
post #186 of 204 Old 06-06-2016, 06:26 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
RafaelSmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orlando Fl
Posts: 2,248
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 519 Post(s)
Liked: 342
135inch screen.

Seating is at roughly 14feet from head to screen.

So, came out to roughly 2.5 screen width.

Seems to be perfect for us. I could probably stand to have it forward another foot.
RafaelSmith is offline  
post #187 of 204 Old 06-06-2016, 06:49 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 5,586
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 685 Post(s)
Liked: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveFred View Post
The math can say one thing, but our eyes tell us another. I have a 180" wide(195.4 Diagonal) 2.37:1 Curved Screen(76" high) with my new theater I just finished. I sit 16' back and it is absolutely perfect(have watched 20 movies so far). Now that being said, my 2nd row is 22' back and some of my guest prefer that distance.

I'm not sure what your point is exactly, but the 'math and eyes' in your case match perfectly with THXs recommendations - they suggest that 2.4 x the image height is the optimal viewing distance for scope - around 52 degrees horizontal viewing angle which also gives you 40 degrees for 16:9 in the same seat. You're sitting at around 2.5xIH which is very close so you've proved the math works

Your back row is 3.47xIH so just inside THXs furthest recommended seating distance of 3.68xIH (36 degrees for scope), so they're within the guidelines there too.

Gary
sarahb75 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 offline  
post #188 of 204 Old 06-06-2016, 07:06 AM
Advanced Member
 
SteveFred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vernon, WI(near Milwaukee)
Posts: 680
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 202 Post(s)
Liked: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
I'm not sure what your point is exactly, but the 'math and eyes' in your case match perfectly with THXs recommendations - they suggest that 2.4 x the image height is the optimal viewing distance for scope - around 52 degrees horizontal viewing angle which also gives you 40 degrees for 16:9 in the same seat. You're sitting at around 2.5xIH which is very close so you've proved the math works

Your back row is 3.47xIH so just inside THXs furthest recommended seating distance of 3.68xIH (36 degrees for scope), so they're within the guidelines there too.

Gary

Hey Gary, Yes my seating ended up being right with the math I just meant that it does not have to match up for everyone. So go with what feels the best for you and use the recommended distance as a guideline.
Gary Lightfoot and sarahb75 like this.

New Theater pics
Theater Thread
JVC RS600/180"(195.4" Diagonal) Wide curved Seymour 2.37:1 XD/Marantz 8802A/Outlaw Amps 7900 & 5000, 7.2.4 all PSA set up 3 MTM210's / 8 MT110SR's / Dual t-18's
SteveFred is offline  
post #189 of 204 Old 06-07-2016, 05:06 AM
Senior Member
 
sarahb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norton, Ohio
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveFred View Post
The math can say one thing, but our eyes tell us another. I have a 180" wide(195.4 Diagonal) 2.37:1 Curved Screen(76" high) with my new theater I just finished. I sit 16' back and it is absolutely perfect(have watched 20 movies so far). Now that being said, my 2nd row is 22' back and some of my guest prefer that distance.
Steve, all that I heard coming out of my mouth while looking at that photo of your screen and reading your description of your viewing situation, was WOW!

I think that Sigmund Freud, if he were here today, would have to coin a new term to describe the condition I'm now experiencing after seeing your post. He might label that condition: "Screen Envy".

Steve, I hope that you and yours will keep enjoying many happy years of viewing the kinds of movies that are able to take full advantage of that magnificent screen.

Mike Boone
SteveFred likes this.
sarahb75 is offline  
post #190 of 204 Old 06-07-2016, 06:12 AM
Advanced Member
 
SteveFred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vernon, WI(near Milwaukee)
Posts: 680
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 202 Post(s)
Liked: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahb75 View Post
Steve, all that I heard coming out of my mouth while looking at that photo of your screen and reading your description of your viewing situation, was WOW!

I think that Sigmund Freud, if he were here today, would have to coin a new term to describe the condition I'm now experiencing after seeing your post. He might label that condition: "Screen Envy".

Steve, I hope that you and yours will keep enjoying many happy years of viewing the kinds of movies that are able to take full advantage of that magnificent screen.

Mike Boone

Hey Mike, Thx for the compliment! Believe me, I am enjoying it. After 350+ hours of work, I am glad it is done. Only thing I did not do myself was the carpet haha. I have watched a movie(or 2) each night for the past 3 weeks since I completed it. The 4K Blu rays with DTS X/Atmos sound are stunning and getting me way spoiled(Bought 15 already lol). It is like candy to my eyes and ears. Most normal blu rays upscaled look very good also. Even being in the hobby as long as I have, this 2nd theater is leaps and bounds ahead of my first theater and I truly feel like I am at the movies

New Theater pics
Theater Thread
JVC RS600/180"(195.4" Diagonal) Wide curved Seymour 2.37:1 XD/Marantz 8802A/Outlaw Amps 7900 & 5000, 7.2.4 all PSA set up 3 MTM210's / 8 MT110SR's / Dual t-18's
SteveFred is offline  
post #191 of 204 Old 06-07-2016, 06:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,521
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 327 Post(s)
Liked: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson
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.
 
Thats interesting Scott....... I love my CRT and its 16" .. I usually lay on my bed while watching it... About 3 Feet away I guess..... (I dont even know,im just guessing @ the distance) Somewhere between 3 and 4 feet..


So my screen height is 16 inches and THEY SAY the optimum distance is 3 times that,would that be 16x3 in inches??


That would be 48 which would be a little bit MORE than what I watch it @ now. About 36 inches or so.....


My computer CRT is also 16" and I sit right up in front of it....... (A little more than 1 foot away)

Last edited by Dude111; 06-09-2016 at 12:06 PM.
Dude111 is offline  
post #192 of 204 Old 06-07-2016, 06:55 PM
Senior Member
 
sarahb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norton, Ohio
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveFred View Post
Hey Mike, Thx for the compliment! Believe me, I am enjoying it. After 350+ hours of work, I am glad it is done. Only thing I did not do myself was the carpet haha. I have watched a movie(or 2) each night for the past 3 weeks since I completed it. The 4K Blu rays with DTS X/Atmos sound are stunning and getting me way spoiled(Bought 15 already lol). It is like candy to my eyes and ears. Most normal blu rays upscaled look very good also. Even being in the hobby as long as I have, this 2nd theater is leaps and bounds ahead of my first theater and I truly feel like I am at the movies
Steve, I was just wondering, since your picture quality with 4K Blu-rays must rival that of 4K commercial theaters, and you are equipped with terrific DTS X, as well as Atmos, sound capability, do you really have much interest in going to the movies anymore, where you have to put up with annoyances like people texting or talking, or missing some of the movie, if you need to use the restroom?

Mike Boone

Last edited by sarahb75; 06-07-2016 at 06:59 PM. Reason: misspell
sarahb75 is offline  
post #193 of 204 Old 06-07-2016, 07:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
SteveFred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vernon, WI(near Milwaukee)
Posts: 680
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 202 Post(s)
Liked: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahb75 View Post
Steve, I was just wondering, since your picture quality with 4K Blu-rays must rival that of 4K commercial theaters, and you are equipped with terrific DTS X, as well as Atmos, sound capability, do you really have much interest in going to the movies anymore, where you have to put up with annoyances like people texting or talking, or missing some of the movie, if you need to use the restroom?

Mike Boone
I do have DTS:X also (Marantz 8802A)which I am just about to hear on the new 4K Independence Day that just came out today I have zero interest in the commercial theaters. If I go maybe once or twice a year, for say Star Wars, that would be about it. Commercial theaters do not seem to have the same quality audio as we have at home. Sure they have a ton more speakers, but they blast the front speakers way too much and the balance doesn't seem to be there(Just my opinion). I also have noticed a lot of people like you said texting/tweeting/etc on their phones during the movies and it is very annoying seeing their screens continuously light up. I will be glad once Ultra Blu rays become more prevalent and come down under $20, but seeing a lot of them already, it is worth the extra $10 a movie for the awesome sound tracks and how it looks on my screen
sarahb75 and steve1106 like this.

New Theater pics
Theater Thread
JVC RS600/180"(195.4" Diagonal) Wide curved Seymour 2.37:1 XD/Marantz 8802A/Outlaw Amps 7900 & 5000, 7.2.4 all PSA set up 3 MTM210's / 8 MT110SR's / Dual t-18's
SteveFred is offline  
post #194 of 204 Old 06-08-2016, 10:21 AM
Senior Member
 
sarahb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norton, Ohio
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 162
One Attempt At Explaining Why Sound At Movie Theaters Can Be Unimpressive

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveFred View Post
I do have DTS:X also (Marantz 8802A)which I am just about to hear on the new 4K Independence Day that just came out today I have zero interest in the commercial theaters. If I go maybe once or twice a year, for say Star Wars, that would be about it. Commercial theaters do not seem to have the same quality audio as we have at home. Sure they have a ton more speakers, but they blast the front speakers way too much and the balance doesn't seem to be there(Just my opinion). I also have noticed a lot of people like you said texting/tweeting/etc on their phones during the movies and it is very annoying seeing their screens continuously light up. I will be glad once Ultra Blu rays become more prevalent and come down under $20, but seeing a lot of them already, it is worth the extra $10 a movie for the awesome sound tracks and how it looks on my screen
I really appreciate your response, Steve. A couple decades ago, my wife (then girlfriend) and I used to go to the movies almost every week. In fact, on a Saturday afternoon in 1997, we went to see a turkey called "Volcano", that starred Tommy Lee Jones, and that flick's failure to satisfy our movie craving, had us rushing to our car, after that flick ended, in order to cover the 10 miles to another theater, so that we could see a 2nd film called "Breakdown", with Kurt Russell, which turned out to be fairly good.

But since our theater room, with surround sound, was built in 2011, we have only gone out to the movies twice. The last time we went to a movie theater was in October of 2013, because I wanted to experience seeing "Gravity" on one of the Cinemark theater chain's huge XD screens.

And Steve, I sure agree with you about commercial theater sound, it's been my experience, and that of other people I've talked with, that so often the channels are seriously out of balance in commercial theaters. IMO, many times, theaters will have the surround/effects channels turned up so loud that the sound level overpowers, and even tends to drowned out the channel, or channels, that provide the dialogue spoken by the movie's characters.

I have also read that the vast majority of modern commercial theaters are using horn type tweeters to reproduce the upper end of the sound spectrum, and often, even for a good portion of the midrange, as well. Horn type speaker drivers are especially suited to where producing a high volume of sound in a large venue is required. But the horn type of speaker is not capable of producing some of the subtleties present in sound, that the tweeter and mid-range units found in many quality home speakers are capable of producing. In having used some pretty good audio products at home, since the early 1970s, I had always wondered why movie theater sound, at even very classy theaters, had rarely impressed me very much. Those horn type speakers may provide most, or maybe all, of the answer to my personal question concerning why commercial theater sound just didn't seem so great.

I have had the experience in our home theater of guests telling me that the dialogue that characters were speaking was much easier to understand with the Blu-ray we had on, than it was at the theater where they had originally seen the movie. Now, normally, few people who know me would think of me as being any kind of a "control freak", but I sure like to be able to carefully control the balance of the audio channels when playing a movie. And though we have what many might describe as a "kick ass" subwoofer, a 70 pound M&K unit that has twin 12" woofers in a sealed acoustic suspension enclosure, that unit's level is carefully set so that it doesn't overpower the rest of a movie's sound.

My wife and I, during the end of the 1990s, and in the early 2000s, used to visit a friend down in Raleigh, North Carolina, who would practically drive us crazy with the way he set bass levels when we would watch a movie on DVD, in his home theater. He had a pretty extensive set up, including some quite expensive separate power amps and pre-amps. Anyway, for front speakers, he was using a famous tower type model from Definitive Technology, that retailed for about $3,200, for the pair. Each of those Definitive Technology units contained its own built in 15 inch self powered woofer. And Gregg would have those woofers turned up so that you were always aware of the presence of the woofers, because there was almost always a sort of rumble in a movie's sound, whether the onscreen action seemed to call for it, or not.

Certainly, I'm starting to run off at the mouth, a little too much here. But one thought just sprung to mind, in thinking again about the kind of sound that people may encounter when they go out to a movie. Maybe, a major reason, at commercial theaters, that the surround channels are sometimes set at too high a level, is due to theater managers not wanting members of the audience to possibly be able to miss the fact that their theaters are really equipped with surround sound. And those managers may think that the average guy (who probably doesn't have a home theater) is especially impressed when he hears loud sound effects coming from both behind him, as well as from each side, because in earlier times, for most films, movie customers usually only heard sound coming from the front, which emanated from speakers located behind the screen.

But the problem now, is that since the sound design for today's movies still basically calls for dialogue to originate from the front, to match where the actors are usually seen speaking it onscreen, if a theater has its surround channels set too aggressively, the front channels are not only being treated like a poor step child, but understanding precisely what the movie's characters are actually saying, can become more difficult than the movie's makers intended it to be.

Mike Boone

Last edited by sarahb75; 06-08-2016 at 10:22 AM. Reason: tired
sarahb75 is offline  
post #195 of 204 Old 06-08-2016, 10:49 AM
Advanced Member
 
SteveFred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vernon, WI(near Milwaukee)
Posts: 680
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 202 Post(s)
Liked: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahb75 View Post
I really appreciate your response, Steve. A couple decades ago, my wife (then girlfriend) and I used to go to the movies almost every week. In fact, on a Saturday afternoon in 1997, we went to see a turkey called "Volcano", that starred Tommy Lee Jones, and that flick's failure to satisfy our movie craving, had us rushing to our car, after that flick ended, in order to cover the 10 miles to another theater, so that we could see a 2nd film called "Breakdown", with Kurt Russell, which turned out to be fairly good.

But since our theater room, with surround sound, was built in 2011, we have only gone out to the movies twice. The last time we went to a movie theater was in October of 2013, because I wanted to experience seeing "Gravity" on one of the Cinemark theater chain's huge XD screens.

And Steve, I sure agree with you about commercial theater sound, it's been my experience, and that of other people I've talked with, that so often the channels are seriously out of balance in commercial theaters. IMO, many times, theaters will have the surround/effects channels turned up so loud that the sound level overpowers, and even tends to drowned out the channel, or channels, that provide the dialogue spoken by the movie's characters.

I have also read that the vast majority of modern commercial theaters are using horn type tweeters to reproduce the upper end of the sound spectrum, and often, even for a good portion of the midrange, as well. Horn type speaker drivers are especially suited to where producing a high volume of sound in a large venue is required. But the horn type of speaker is not capable of producing some of the subtleties present in sound, that the tweeter and mid-range units found in many quality home speakers are capable of producing. In having used some pretty good audio products at home, since the early 1970s, I had always wondered why movie theater sound, at even very classy theaters, had rarely impressed me very much. Those horn type speakers may provide most, or maybe all, of the answer to my personal question concerning why commercial theater sound just didn't seem so great.

I have had the experience in our home theater of guests telling me that the dialogue that characters were speaking was much easier to understand with the Blu-ray we had on, than it was at the theater where they had originally seen the movie. Now, normally, few people who know me would think of me as being any kind of a "control freak", but I sure like to be able to carefully control the balance of the audio channels when playing a movie. And though we have what many might describe as a "kick ass" subwoofer, a 70 pound M&K unit that has twin 12" woofers in a sealed acoustic suspension enclosure, that unit's level is carefully set so that it doesn't overpower the rest of a movie's sound.

My wife and I, during the end of the 1990s, and in the early 2000s, used to visit a friend down in Raleigh, North Carolina, who would practically drive us crazy with the way he set bass levels when we would watch a movie on DVD, in his home theater. He had a pretty extensive set up, including some quite expensive separate power amps and pre-amps. Anyway, for front speakers, he was using a famous tower type model from Definitive Technology, that retailed for about $3,200, for the pair. Each of those Definitive Technology units contained its own built in 15 inch self powered woofer. And Gregg would have those woofers turned up so that you were always aware of the presence of the woofers, because there was almost always a sort of rumble in a movie's sound, whether the onscreen action seemed to call for it, or not.

Certainly, I'm starting to run off at the mouth, a little too much here. But one thought just sprung to mind, in thinking again about the kind of sound that people may encounter when they go out to a movie. Maybe, a major reason, at commercial theaters, that the surround channels are sometimes set at too high a level, is due to theater managers not wanting members of the audience to possibly be able to miss the fact that their theaters are really equipped with surround sound. And those managers may think that the average guy (who probably doesn't have a home theater) is especially impressed when he hears loud sound effects coming from both behind him, as well as from each side, because in earlier times, for most films, movie customers usually only heard sound coming from the front, which emanated from speakers located behind the screen.

But the problem now, is that since the sound design for today's movies still basically calls for dialogue to originate from the front, to match where the actors are usually seen speaking it onscreen, if a theater has its surround channels set too aggressively, the front channels are not only being treated like a poor step child, but understanding precisely what the movie's characters are actually saying, can become more difficult than the movie's makers intended it to be.

Mike Boone

Funny on Volcano, yes that was a horrible attempt at a movie haha. If it was up to me, I would probably never go to a theater again, but having a 13 and 15 year olds, that sometimes do not want to wait 4 months for the Blu ray to come out, so I will give in once in awhile


I agree on the balance of the Subs. I love Sub sounds, but if it washes out the rest of the dialogue, then it needs tweaking. My PSA T-18's can produce a massive sound. I "think" I have them balanced pretty well so far. I had to slowly move them out a foot more from where I originally put them over the past 2 weeks and it has helped. Now when I am in my theater alone and no one was home last weekend. I decided push them to their limits. I was watching U 571 and set my processor to reference and then raised the sub gain almost all the way(+10) and also the gain on the sub themselves. All I can say is WOW . The pressure in the room(and my room is about 5000 cubic ft) was insane. I went upstairs and I could see the hardwood floor vibrating and I thought the tiles in my master bath were going to crack. I did listen to about 30 mins of the movie that way(depth charge scene) and then changed it back down for the rest of the movie(reference). I wonder what a few of the peoples theaters sound like with 6+ subs and I know one guy on here has 16 subs


One last note, I have 8 lights in the theater that are recessed and have the new LED bulbs in there and the one in the front right has unscrewed from its socket 4 times now. I tighten it as much as I can without breaking the socket, but those subs keep unscrewing it haha. Lucky the LED bulbs are near impossible to break when they fall the 11ft and hit the top of my sub lol.

You would think in a theater, they would have professionals setting up the sound/balance/etc, but maybe not, or possibly it could just be the acoustics in the rooms are just too hard to balance because of the size and seating.
sarahb75 likes this.

New Theater pics
Theater Thread
JVC RS600/180"(195.4" Diagonal) Wide curved Seymour 2.37:1 XD/Marantz 8802A/Outlaw Amps 7900 & 5000, 7.2.4 all PSA set up 3 MTM210's / 8 MT110SR's / Dual t-18's

Last edited by SteveFred; 06-08-2016 at 10:54 AM.
SteveFred is offline  
post #196 of 204 Old 06-08-2016, 05:54 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 1,622
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 585 Post(s)
Liked: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveFred View Post
You would think in a theater, they would have professionals setting up the sound/balance/etc, but maybe not, or possibly it could just be the acoustics in the rooms are just too hard to balance because of the size and seating.
I figured it was just a minimum wage (not that there is anything wrong with that) kid being told my the manager that they have complaints that the volume is too low and to turn it up, or the reverse the volume is too low and to turn it down. I've actually experienced this and felt like after several of us complained they wanted to teach us a lesson by turning it too low.

Volcano and Dante's Peak both came out about the same time. Both watchable for free with Dante's Peak being the better movie in my opinion.

Steve your HT is a thing of beauty but the sad truth is that even a cheap setup tends to spank commercial theaters and the experience of viewing/listening with the unwashed masses (rude/crude/raised in a barn).
SteveFred and sarahb75 like this.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-gen...eap-build.html
My width limited HT: Epson HC2000; Screen - 151.5" 16:9/TV or 143.5" 2.35:1/HT at a seating distance of 13/15 feet; Yamaha RXV675 for 7.3; Speakers - Infinity Primus; Subs - 2 Polk PSW10s, 1 BIC F12; Headphones - 4 JVC wireless; Sony 3D Blu-ray player/six pairs 3D glasses.
steve1106 is online now  
post #197 of 204 Old 07-17-2016, 09:30 PM
 
milehighou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,762
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 876 Post(s)
Liked: 210
My eyes are approx 100" (8.3 ft)from my 65" TV (4K). I think I could deal with, even prefer, sitting a bit closer, but my room setup isn't ideal for that. Anyway, this puts me close to the SMPTE recommendations of 1.6x screen diagonal. The THX suggestions have always seemed a little over the top to me. I think it's something like 6' for my current TV. My couch has an ottoman, so if I'm 6' away, the ottoman is very close to the screen, probably close enough to interfere with the center speaker. The SMPTE guidelines just seem more realistic.

BTW, does anyone know what FOV you get when sitting in the back row of a typical commercial theater? I rarely go to the shows anymore because most moviegoers are just inconsiderate A-holes, but when I did go, I didn't have any issues sitting in the back.
milehighou is offline  
post #198 of 204 Old 07-18-2016, 12:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 5,586
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 685 Post(s)
Liked: 429
THX recommends the back row should be 3.68x the image height of a 2.35 screen which would give you a 36 degree FOV (a 16:9 screen would be less). They go on to say that the furthest acceptable seat should be no further than 26 degrees which is 5.16xIH.

SMPTE recommend the furthest seat should be 4xIH which is 33.3 degrees for scope (closest 2xIH).

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

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #199 of 204 Old 08-04-2016, 10:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Skylinestar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borneo Island
Posts: 2,787
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1151 Post(s)
Liked: 209
While getting a wide angle (>40°) is nice, it is only achievable with AT screen. For a non-AT screen, this (too big a screen) will put the center speaker too low/high & the LR speakers too far apart (or end up like the center).
Skylinestar is offline  
post #200 of 204 Old 04-18-2017, 03:17 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 5
55" UHD screen, height 715 mm
Distance from screen about 2 metres.
Jorgeminator is offline  
post #201 of 204 Old 04-19-2017, 10:16 AM
Senior Member
 
sarahb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norton, Ohio
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Better late than never?

Quote:
Originally Posted by milehighou View Post
My eyes are approx 100" (8.3 ft)from my 65" TV (4K). I think I could deal with, even prefer, sitting a bit closer, but my room setup isn't ideal for that. Anyway, this puts me close to the SMPTE recommendations of 1.6x screen diagonal. The THX suggestions have always seemed a little over the top to me. I think it's something like 6' for my current TV. My couch has an ottoman, so if I'm 6' away, the ottoman is very close to the screen, probably close enough to interfere with the center speaker. The SMPTE guidelines just seem more realistic.

BTW, does anyone know what FOV you get when sitting in the back row of a typical commercial theater? I rarely go to the shows anymore because most moviegoers are just inconsiderate A-holes, but when I did go, I didn't have any issues sitting in the back.
milehighou, I'm sorry to be so late in addressing your question about the Field of View experienced by people sitting in the back rows of typical commercial theaters, since you posted your question 9 months ago. But hopefully, a little bit of late help is of some use, although such untimely assistance didn't do General Custer's men, or most of the Titanic's passengers, much good.

But without any of my further nonsense, I just wanted to say that Sony, in some promotional materials regarding its commercial theater SXRD projectors, stated, about 3 years ago, that most of today's new (as in 2013 or 2014 theaters) stadium seating commercial movie theaters were designed so that the last row in the back of such theaters would be at a 3.0 screen height distance from the movie screen. And if I'm remembering correctly from what various members have stated in this thread, that distance corresponds with about 30 degrees of one's horizontal field of view being occupied by the theater's screen. And Sony's information regarding this seems valid to me because of the way my experience in going to movies compares with what we see at home.

Because my wife does not like having people sitting behind us at the movies, we always sit in the back row. (though we rarely go to the movies now) And in our theater room, at home, we sit right at about a 3 screen height distance from the movie image.
And that 10 foot (or slightly less) distance from our eyes to our 80 inch diagonal 16X9 screen, seems to come very close to replicating the kind of movie viewing experience that we have when sitting in the back row of the newest stadium seating theaters that have opened in the Akron/Canton area of Ohio, where we live.

And BTW, in that same promotional material for its SXRD commercial projectors, Sony also stated that most people sitting at that distance of 3 screen heights in a modern commercial theater's back row, cannot see any difference in detail or clarity when going from a 2k commercial projector to a 4k projector, except for audience members in that back row who possess visual acuity that's substantially better than 20/20. And since the 2048 X 1080 resolution of commercial theater 2k projectors is actually only 6.66% greater than the 1920 X 1080 resolution of 1080p Blu-ray, it's no wonder that well mastered Blu-ray discs of movies like Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Skyfall, Titanic, Mission Impossible:Ghost Protocol, The Help, and Battle Los Angeles (but it's lousy as a movie) all seem about as detailed and sharp on our home screen, as any movie images that my wife and I have seen from the back rows of commercial theaters. And since we also have great sound at home, for us, it makes a lot more sense to spend money collecting Blu-rays, instead of plunking down money at theater box offices, and only collecting memories. Plus, no one at the movies is going to pause the presentation for you because the huge Coke you're consuming has forced you to take a bathroom break.

Well, milehighou, my answer was quite slow in coming, but I hope it was still a case of it being a little better as a late response, than having never responded at all.


Mike Boone

Last edited by sarahb75; 04-19-2017 at 10:33 AM. Reason: wrong word
sarahb75 is offline  
post #202 of 204 Old 04-21-2017, 04:41 AM
Senior Member
 
floridaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Palmetto, Florida
Posts: 255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I am in the process of either purchasing the OLED C7 or the Sony XBR 940E for a brand new home. The TV will be wall mounted in the great room and the room is 18'3 x 24'1 in size. My dilemma is the couch will be 13.5 away from the TV. Optimal viewing distance for a 65 inch 4K TV is near 8 feet and for a 75 inch is 9.4 feet. Basically the viewing distance for either set is too far away if you believe the calculations used for viewing distances on a 4K TV. The OLED has the best picture without question and I am upgrading from a Samsung PN64F8500 Plasma TV. I also went to Best Buy and viewed the 65 inch OLED from 14 feet away and the picture looked great. I have talked to Value Electronics about this and Robert is recommending the 75 inch set which means no OLED. I am looking for feedback from some of the members here about your opinion on the viewing distances. Thanks.
floridaman is offline  
post #203 of 204 Old 04-22-2017, 09:13 AM
Member
 
hifiHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: central Tx
Posts: 131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridaman View Post
I am in the process of either purchasing the OLED C7 or the Sony XBR 940E for a brand new home. The TV will be wall mounted in the great room and the room is 18'3 x 24'1 in size. My dilemma is the couch will be 13.5 away from the TV. Optimal viewing distance for a 65 inch 4K TV is near 8 feet and for a 75 inch is 9.4 feet. Basically the viewing distance for either set is too far away if you believe the calculations used for viewing distances on a 4K TV. The OLED has the best picture without question and I am upgrading from a Samsung PN64F8500 Plasma TV. I also went to Best Buy and viewed the 65 inch OLED from 14 feet away and the picture looked great. I have talked to Value Electronics about this and Robert is recommending the 75 inch set which means no OLED. I am looking for feedback from some of the members here about your opinion on the viewing distances. Thanks.
It's all subjective IMO - I sit about 13' from my 65" LED and it looks good to me!
hifiHigh is offline  
post #204 of 204 Old Today, 09:04 PM
Newbie
 
Stu1961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Exactly 2.5

4' high screen, 10' seating distance.

Now I'm second-thinking plans to go bigger!
Stu1961 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Community News & Polls

Tags
frontpage , Polls



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