or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › Seating distance vs screen size for 2.39:1 AT screen? Have you one like this?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Seating distance vs screen size for 2.39:1 AT screen? Have you one like this?

post #1 of 60
Thread Starter 
Going through rough estimations for possible setup options, I was looking at an Acoustically Transparent 2.39:1 CIH screen. Using a Centerstage or SMX screen and sitting with the viewers eyes at approximately 10.5-11.5 (roughly 11 feet) from the screen, I was looking at a screen of about 51 to 52" high by 124.5" wide. Width for the 16:9 portion would be 92.5". It appears that suggested screen size for 11 feet seating distance is smaller. If I didn't go with an AT screen, I would be looking at something 13 to 14 feet away and smaller at 48-50" high x 117" (for eg. 49 x 117).

Is my AT CIH 2.39:1 screen of 124.5" wide too big for a seating distance of 11 feet? It seems like they suggest smaller, but what experience do people here have?

(EDIT)
Equipment:

A) Sony HW15 or similar 1080p LCOS or LCD projector.
B) H600 Prismasonic lens.
post #2 of 60
Attachment 155456

Attachment 155457
LL
LL
post #3 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpc View Post


Is my AT CIH 2.39:1 screen of 124.5" wide too big for a seating distance of 11 feet? It seems like they suggest smaller, but what experience do people here have?

Based on the charts in post #2, you can sit as close as 2x the image height with 3x being preferred. The screen height your looking means that your seated about 2.5x the screen height at 11 feet which is great for 1080 and a lens.

I generally sit at 3x (and will sit at 2x for HD films) away from my AT screen.
post #4 of 60
Thread Starter 
Ok, that seems like it should be ok then in both cases (AT screen or regular screen placed farther back and up). Just wanted to make sure I wasn't at the extreme's in either situation. I'm in the 'farther' category' at 1.42W with the regular screen, but still forward of farthest recommended, and about 2.5x screen height with the AT screen which is fine too. Would be difficult to then put anybody closer. My speakers are deep and I can't put the AT screen too close to them.

thanks for the feedback guys,

post #5 of 60
Here is an image of what my system looks like at 3x the image height (in line with the LHS of the screen) projected on to my Curved AT Screen . It is an OzTS "Acoustic Vision" screen.

The screen is 2.37:1 and is 8 feet wide. The screen is 2 feet (bottom of 3" frame) off the floor. The LCRs are just below centre so prety much aim at my face when seated. The combo works well
LL
post #6 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Here is an image of what my system looks like at 3x the image height (in line with the LHS of the screen) projected on to my Curved AT Screen . It is an OzTS "Acoustic Vision" screen.

The screen is 2.37:1 and is 8 feet wide. The screen is 2 feet (bottom of 3" frame) off the floor. The LCRs are just below centre so prety much aim at my face when seated. The combo works well

Looks good Mark!!
post #7 of 60
cpc

Just for reference, your eyes were in your suggested range on a 127" wide 1.5 (claimed) gain Vutec when you were hereabouts. As you well know I don't follow those charts but sit where I please.

My apologies for not getting back to you elsewhere - time has been tight with the furniture rearranging I've undertaken. ;-}

hope you are well
ted
post #8 of 60
There appear to be two questions here really. The first is the best seating for immersion and comfort the second is visibility of texture. IMO with SMX one can see texture clearly at about 8' and it dissappears after that at greater distance. YMMV depending on your vision but mine is corrrected to 20/20.

The minimum seating is about 2x height for me for a nice combination of immersion but still getting the whole image in without a lot of head movement.

Art
post #9 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

The minimum seating is about 2x height for me for a nice combination of immersion but still getting the whole image in without a lot of head movement.

I agree with that seating distance for a CIH system and running HD. I do find SD a little rough that close however and will move back to my 3x for playback of such content.
post #10 of 60
Thread Starter 
tvted,

no problemo. hope all is well with you and the family. I always think of you guys when Im visiting (working) at high park or getting food or chai latte at Alternative Grounds.

Sounds good about the distance and the texture business. At 10-11 feet, I imagine I shouldn't see texture. I guess one thing I was kinda not keen on was the fact that I won't be using the HW15 at it's longest zoom setting. I was (am?) obsessed with achieving maximum contrast and minimum black levels. I suppose at 1.25x zoom it should be ok.
post #11 of 60
My 2.39 screen is 54 X 129 ... I sit 11 feet away.. super great with the marantz 11s2
post #12 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by slots1 View Post

My 2.39 screen is 54 X 129 ... I sit 11 feet away.. super great with the marantz 11s2

Which works out to about 2.4x the image height which is great
post #13 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

I agree with that seating distance for a CIH system and running HD. I do find SD a little rough that close however and will move back to my 3x for playback of such content.

Agreed ! Most of my 2.35 is HD fortunately.

Art
post #14 of 60
I have over 300 DVDs and less than 100 BDs and no HD DVD.

Most are Scope.
post #15 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Agreed ! Most of my 2.35 is HD fortunately.

Art

Same
post #16 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Agreed ! Most of my 2.35 is HD fortunately.

Art

And some good HD Scope films coming out soon - T4, TF2 etc. Though probably not your taste, right Art?
post #17 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

And some good HD Scope films coming out soon - T4, TF2 etc. Though probably not your taste, right Art?

Right.

Art
post #18 of 60
129" wide 2.37:1 SMX screen at 11' with an AE3000 projector.

Couldn't be happier.
post #19 of 60
Jamis, at what height off the floor is your screen mounted??
post #20 of 60
Based on the very informative attachments from a previous post, the
SMPTE Reference distance is 1.26*W which is the same as 3*H for
a 2.39 image.

However, when a 1.78 movie is projected, the viewer is still
sitting at 3*H, but is now 1.69*W which is farther than SMPTE
farthest distance.

So, what is the best way to calculate optimal distance from a
screen which will be used for viewing both 2.39 and 1.78 AR movies?
post #21 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaidog View Post



So, what is the best way to calculate optimal distance from a
screen which will be used for viewing both 2.39 and 1.78 AR movies?

Work off the height. 3*H is 3*H regardless of the AR or screen size.
post #22 of 60
I have 3 rows with a 14' wide screen (6 ft tall).

Row 1: 1.8X
Row 2: 2.6X
Row 3: 3.8X

For me, the the 2nd row (16.5') is ideal. I sit here for 1.78 films as well. I find either aspect at this distance quite involving. The first row is a smidge close but a lot of fun with big action films as everything is so big and fills your entire field of view. This is my command center row
post #23 of 60
My front row is 14' from my 52 x 122 Da-mat screen using the AE4000 and personally I wouldn't be comfortable sitting any closer.

The image quality would be fine at say 10', but being that close to the 122 wide image would fatigue me.
post #24 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

Row 1: 1.8X

1.8x of what, W or H?


My limited experience tells me I should watch movies from as close to 0.5W as the projection quality permits, if I want maximum immersion without loss of relevant/central information (which I always do want). The first time I saw Avatar, I got a seat at about 0.3W - the far edges of the screen didn't even fit in the FOV of the 3D glasses and I had to move my head to read the subtitles or see some details in some scenes, but the immersivity totally blew me away. That's why I tend to think the sweet spot must be around 0.5W somewhere (that and the fact that 0.5W puts the image within the limits of my seeing glasses' frame).

All this talk about 1W+ being "optimal" or whatever makes no sense to me except in the context of current projectors' resolution limitations.
post #25 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by donjoe View Post

1.8x of what, W or H?


My limited experience tells me I should watch movies from as close to 0.5W as the projection quality permits, if I want maximum immersion without loss of relevant/central information (which I always do want). The first time I saw Avatar, I got a seat at about 0.3W - the far edges of the screen didn't even fit in the FOV of the 3D glasses and I had to move my head to read the subtitles or see some details in some scenes, but the immersivity totally blew me away. That's why I tend to think the sweet spot must be around 0.5W somewhere (that and the fact that 0.5W puts the image within the limits of my seeing glasses' frame).

All this talk about 1W+ being "optimal" or whatever makes no sense to me except in the context of current projectors' resolution limitations.

I have a 100" screen. You methodology would put me four feet from the screen.

I think better reconsider.

Scott
post #26 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyb View Post

I have a 100" screen. You methodology would put me four feet from the screen.

I think better reconsider.

You're missing some pronouns there, so I don't understand who you think should reconsider.
But BTW, since 100" is your screen's diagonal and not its width, the 0.5W seating distance in your case would be more precisely 3.63 ft (assuming a screen aspect ratio of 1.778).

Now if you have 20/20 vision,

- sitting at 1W distance from the screen means you can physically perceive about 1600 distinct pixels on any horizontal line, which is somewhere between the widths of 720p (1280) and 1080p (1920), so you could still max out on image quality by using currently available technology, i.e. 1080p, but

- sitting at 0.5W distance from the screen means you can physically perceive about 2700 distinct pixels on the horizontal, which is more than even 1080p can give you, so here lies the main problem with sitting close enough to get optimal immersivity: we don't yet have the consumer technologies to deliver the kind of resolutions that would be necessary to max out on image quality at such seating distances.
post #27 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by donjoe View Post

1.8x of what, W or H?

That would be height.
post #28 of 60
For the OP; if you look at what THX recommend, they suggest a 40 degree viewing angle for 1080 HDTV which is approx 2.4 image heights distance. It also works out to around 53 degrees for a scope image of the same height from the same seat (such as with a CIH setup). THXs optimal seating distance for scope is around 50 degrees which is also the geometric center of the seating area in a THX designed and certified theatre.

THX may be a lot of 'fluff' for some people and THX certified equipment, but I think they're suggestions for things like seating distance work well in the home with 1080 displays.

This video may be of interest to some:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBdmG...ayer_embedded#

Gary
post #29 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

This video may be of interest to some:
/watch?v=rBdmGXG3uIY

He's talking about "really wide, really immersive" images, yet he recommends a viewing angle of only 50 degrees at the middle of the seat array (which he presumably intends as a sweet spot). This is complete nonsense to me - nothing less than 90 degrees of viewing angle deserves to be called "really wide, really immersive". The human visual system perceives colours in about 130 degrees of its FOV, plus some extra shapes and movement up to 170+ degrees (where the human FOV reaches its limits). Talking about immersivity at 53 degrees is nuts. I think it may be just the industry's way to sweep under the rug the fact that they can't yet offer good enough resolutions to avoid pixelation/screen-door at really-immersive viewing angles/distances.
post #30 of 60
[quote=donjoe;18264353]You're missing some pronouns there, so I don't understand who you think should reconsider.
But BTW, since 100" is your screen's diagonal and not its width, the 0.5W seating distance in your case would be more precisely 3.63 ft (assuming a screen aspect ratio of 1.778).

QUOTE]

It is 100" wide and 2:35. Zero chance of me sitting 4 ft from the screen. I'd be throwing up at every movie.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › Seating distance vs screen size for 2.39:1 AT screen? Have you one like this?