9' give or take seating distance... Screen size?

depends on the PJ.

120" - 125" seems right to me.

9' from a 125" diag 16:9 screen gives a viewing angle of 54 deg. Ideal is closer to 45 deg. If you are going CIH, then 50 deg is a good max angle for 2.40 images.

If your vision is 20/20, the optimal seating distance from that size screen is 16' just based on image sharpness. It will be a little less sharp seated closer (ignoring screen door effect).

A 106" screen would give you 46 deg.

This is the calculator I'm referencing.

yes, i'm well aware of that calculator and yes i am one of many who believe it is old school in thinking, especially with todays high contrast 1080p pjs.

my own theater also has 8-9 foot seating and 110" screen. love it. and with only 7 foot ceilings in my basement... my only regret is wishing i could be bigger.

I'm going to pitch in and say that it depends on who's watching. My original screen was 144" with a 144" seating distance. My wife and I loved it, but some of our visitors actually became a bit dis-oriented in action scenes & had to leave the room. Recently I dropped the screen size to 138"--for logistical reasons. Not a big change, but it was enough to alleviate the discomfort some of our guests felt.

My recommendation is to first project on to the wall & get a feel for how you like the size. Watch a few movies, try it at different screen sizes. Calculators are nice, but a projection is worth a thousand calculations.

It's a reference based on cinema industry practice and human acuity. Nothing old school about that. And nothing to do with contrast, either.


So you went from a 47-deg to a 45-deg view. Both pretty much in keeping with current practice. Even so, some folks were sensitive to the larger size. Imagine the results with the 54-deg screen originally planned and endorsed. There appears to be some modicum of wisdom on the "old school" calculator after all.

If the OP plans 2 rows of seating, then that offers viewers a nice option depending on their sensitivity.


Excellent advice.

I am 10' back from a 140" 2.40:1 screen, and love it. Tastes vary wildly person to person. But a back row is the best choice, so that people who need the extra distance have it.

I am also 10ft away from my 118" screen. Looks totally immersive but could have gotten a few more inches if the switch wasn't in the way.

Victor

I'm at 9' viewing distance and used the calculator to come up with an 85" screen size. I wish I had gone bigger and would be happier with 110", but it's about personal preference. The wife thinks the 85" is perfect, so if she's happy I'm happy.

That Sir, is reasoning firmly rooted in not just the Foundations of the "Old School", it lies under the rubble created by the Wrecking Ball of Progress. It's time you dug you way out and into the Light of the potential of immersing one's self in the viewing experience. Had you simply stated that some people find such viewing distance to a large Screen uncomfortable, no issue could be taken with that stance. But by stating the old Screen Size/Seating distance limitations are still held to
valid due to human visual acuity....that's simply not the case for the majority.

Lasik Hybrids and Human/Eagle Mutants notwithstanding of course.

I certainly will agree that Industry Standards continue to play a role in such misconceptions, but then again...they (the Mfg Screen Industry...) has been needing a new set of Glasses for quite a while. We here on DIY Screens have been working to re-educate them for quite a while. It's been easy for use...not so much for them.


It (viewing distance to Screen size ratio) "has" become a matter of preference.....and moved away from being a technical necessity.

As long as these factors come together:

High Resolution (1080i or above) I know of no current 1080p PJs whose image structure when showing 1080p HD content shows marked pixel-ation or SDE. Some show absolutely NADA structure/artifacts, so if that's so, where then is the lower limit for effective viewing?

The real unit of measure is now the limits imposed by Peripheral Vision. Although the "IMAX Ping Pong Effect" is a factor than creates discomfort in more than a few, that results primarily because of the Screen area exceeding the Peripheral. When a person perceives movement far to one side of center-vision, and rapidly glances back and forth, disorientation can result. But why then do we not all be stuck in a constant state of disorientation when using our eyesight normally, and taking in everything within our field of vision? Because we do not try to over compensate to constantly monitor the visual that lies beyond the Peripheral.

A 1:1 Ratio, Eye distance to Diagonal Screen size is a very doable and exciting experience. But one must become acclimated to watching such a wide field of imagery. It's simple. Relax. Do not try to follow off center movement...just take it in like you would when noting movement to one side of your position when gazing eyes forward while walking.

But for certain, other elements must be working for such an experience....not against it.


Effective Balance between brightness and contrast vs viewing distance is also essential. Too bright...or too Dim....or a lack of detailed deffinition can be more detrimental and cause eye strain and headaches far more readily than merely staying in the habit of shifting one's eyes rapidly back and forth following that 'ol Ping Pong Ball.

The height of the center of the screen as relates to the height of the viewer's eyes, and the resulting pitch the head must maintain to view "center" is another potentially limiting factor. And can also be a personal preference thing. I've seen Owners who ALWAYS rest their Head back against the seat/couch and naturally gaze upward...while other "edge of their seat'ers" like to maintain a "level chin" viewing position.

But casting aside all personal issues, technically there is no "too close" restrictions anymore if Display / Content issues are addressed by today's drastically improved performance potential.

Lastly, experience must come into play as well. Those who graduated from the "Old School" or in the least have taken the Mantra of those Post Grads to breast have really not even explored the boundaries of maximum screen size to viewing distance. Understandable since they have more experience being subjugated to the whims of both conventionality and equipment limitations.

Goodness sake...I can easily recall a time when the Screen surface itself was at least as much a factor as image resolution. Much of my own early DIY Screen applications worked to eliminate such Screen-oriented concerns, and thereby helped many a 800x600 & 720p Projector outperform expectations. One could say...no, MUST say that such advances in DIY Screens outstripped their Mfg Screen counterparts in that respect...leastwise far in advance to when Mfg Screen makers decided to play catch-up.

That last factor is directly responsible for the enormous increase in DIY Screen sizes we see. Those who know me and my past efforts know that since 2002 my average DIY Screen size has always been 110" diagonal (...and that with hoary old Sanyos and InFocus entry level PJs ) and a great many example have exceeded 135" diagonal. Some out to 144" diagonal...which under lessor "Screen" circumstances would have resulted in untenable viewing quality...regardless of viewing distance.

Such sizes did not come into being because I was accepting of poorer viewing experiences in favor of sheer size, nor would very many DIY'ers who have gone on to creating similar applications venture to state that they exceeded the boundaries of sensible design.

My standard practice is to place the Viewer within a 1:1.2 ratio, Diagonal Screen Size to viewing distance, unless that person specifically states he wants it otherwise. To almost every instance, those who expressed concern learned quickly enough how to adjust....they simply stopped trying to focus on too many areas at once and started gazing at the vista of the Screen as a whole.

FWIW, I have 20/10 uncorrected vision, am 38 years old, and my preferred seating location is about 14' away from a 106" 16:9 screen with a 1080p PJ. This is my middle row. I have a couch in front row that is okay, but a little too close, and a back row on a 6.5" riser. The back row is okay as well, but I don't like the audio that close to the back wall.

That is very much in keeping with normal expectations, and certainly reflects a personal preference due to your ownenviable physical attributes as well.

I'm sure you had some "Front Row'ers" comment about how much they enjoy that location...and perhaps a few that have found it is a bit discomforting as well. But Image quality seldom is the factor in play anymore, and that is/was the point behind my comments.

My post was more directed toward the pixelation than the ping-pong effect, although I do notice the ping-pong issue from the front row.

Picture quality shouldn't change from one distance to another, however, the ability to notice individual pixels would change, based on an individual's vision. If you sat 2" away from the screen, you would certainly notice the individual pixels more. For me, any closer than ~14', and I lose a level of immersiveness on the 106" screen because the picture is a little more grainy.

The only way for a person to know what is going to work for them is by throwing the image on the wall before getting the screen. I should mention too, that I did a lot of 6th grade algebra and Pythagorean calculations to make sure that, based on projector height off the ceiling and throw distance and image size that the image wouldn't be blocked by people when seated. It's a minor thing in a decent sized room, but gets more important with smaller rooms.

I really believe that's the key. Everyone has their own personal preference. Not everybody knows what that preference is until they've tried a few movies at different sizes. My wife originally wanted a smaller screen. But after watching a few movies on the wall she decided she like the bigger screen. OK, no off color comments here!

Look at an empty movie theater just before showtime. As people come in some sit near the front, some sit at the back and some sit in the center. My guess is that if you're a front row kind of person, go with a bigger diagonal than seating distance. If you're a back row kind of person you probably want a smaller diagonal than the seating distance.

Which calculator is 'The Calculator'?

If you say it is not the case for the majority, then it is the case for some. I'll accept that. Not that many people care about image quality, and are quite happy to look at DVDs the same size as Blu-rays, myself included. But they do not look as sharp. It does make a difference, just the same as does image size. It's all about pixel density.

It's always been a matter of preference. Some folks prefer to recreate the theatrical experience, others do not. I take no issue with either camp. My intended contribution for the OP was in helping him make an informed decision, not in forcing any particular decision upon him.

It depends how close you are to the screen. If you cannot see the pixels even up close, then try focusing the lens.

I'm not sure if you're question is true or you're being a bit of a smart alec, but I used this one:

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/v...alculator.html

I used this along with other information I gleaned from the web. My point is that I wish I had gone bigger regardless of what the calculators say.

i didn't mean to start anything... by saying old school...

i gave a recommendation based upon personal experience of installing many HT screens and my customers experiences... as well disclosing that my own HT screen is 110" at 8-9ft. i personally would have gone bigger but my basement has less than 7' ceilings and i didn't want my centers on the floor.

the poster wanted to go with the bigger size... so 120" being just an additional 4" on each side and being a foot two further back than my own... my recommendation was certainly not over the top... especially given the pj he intended to use.

as for my kids, i think they must be blind... the 8ft chairs are TOO far away... they'd rather be 4 to 5 ft away on the floor.

I am asking because in this thread, the only other mention of a calculator is the one in my first post, and that one does not dictate a specific angle.

The calculator you cited, however, has the line "THX recommended ...36 degree viewing angle" which is either outdated or incorrect. THX currently says says "40-degrees or less" here. It proves that not all calculators are created equal when it comes to advice. Depending on the image resolution limits at the time the calculator was created, such as in the DVD era when home theaters increased in popularity, they may have recommend smaller screens. (480p images and 720p screens should not be viewed as large as 1080p if max sharpness is the goal.) Blu-ray, HDTV, and 1080p are relatively recent in home theater evolution, and finally enable the full cinematic experience at home. I'm not sure all the older calculators have caught up.

Your 38-degree screen is not far off THX'a 40-deg mark, and for HDTV it's quite good, IMVHO FWIW. The reason for a wider screen really comes into play when 2.40 aspect movies are shown. Then, as in a movie theater, the screen opens wider, and the immersive effect is enhanced. Hence the craze for CIH projection systems. Your desired 110" screen would be exactly the size needed for a 2.4 ratio to maintain the same height as your current 85" 1.78 screen, giving a superb 50-deg view, which is what I mentioned as a good choice in my first post.

In the all in all, one must consider as well that the art of DIY Screen making has centered around both getting a bigger size screen for the money than most could expect with a Mfg offering, as well as that Screen having a fine, less texture-prone surface than Most Mfg Screens.

It's taken the Screen industry a Loooooong time to realize that a surface without texture does not work to "enhance" the pixelation and/or artifacts present in an image.

Well they probably have known such. But their products and methods did not illustrate either their having such knowledge, or the willingness to attempt to deploy such. To my reasoning, the potential issues with adverse gain (hot spotting) coming off a truly smooth surface was the most vexing problem they faced.

In DIY, we overcome that by introducing additional gain-inducing metallics, but we plaved then with what was essentially a "Flat Sheen-ed" translucent base, or just the use of simple neutral Grays and Whites that also had a minimum of sheen characteristics.

So almost from the start, DIY Screens with properly applied surfaces never accented Screen Door Effect, and greatly reduced Noise Crawl. Testimony to that success lay in the fact that as image quality as seen off the Screen surface improved, there was no uper level of satisfaction found. No...of we could improve things so much, the clamor and cry for "Mo Bedder" just never ceased.

Next up was Contrast enhancement without creating abhorrent Color Shifts and/or any crushing of Whites or colors.

Well....few will dispute that we nailed that as well.

So all combined, with such qualities in hand, even the 1080x768 and 720p machines showed images that looked better on DIY offerings than did their Mfg counterparts. Smoother. More dynamic. And of course, most all were done for ridiculously less money.

But most important along the lines of this thread, the sizes of the Screens also went up, and in many cases the realization that one could sit closer to the smaller screens also help increase the perception of size.

I will still firmly state that the figures shown in/on the calculators are based on a fixed mind set due to previously accepted limitations. Status Quo stuff. Personal and physical limitations notwithstanding, from a 1:1 viewing/size ratio, the resolution of todays PJs seldom present visible artifacts. or in the least, such a marked reduction that effectively they cease to be of any issue for the vast majority of Consumers.

On AVS, for years the critiquing has been done by those who really do not fall so squarely into the "majority" classification. No...we members always expect more, and do not want to settle for less. What we might disdain....most all others covet and lust for, and would be deliriously happy if they achieved such.

BTW, a JVC X3 / RS-anything will not show "any" image structure on a smooth screen...even from inches away. Neither will a Panny 4000. An Epson 1080p'er is good to go from 2'+ away. Honestly...no one watches from a distance under 24" away in any case, but the "looking at the Screen from just past the end of your nose" qualification is something that WE HERE ON DIY SCREENS first advocated...because we could.

Like I said, try focusing the lens. The pixels are easy to see "from inches away."

Not enough that any non-anal viewer would or could ever notice. And you can be certain I know how to focus an image to optimal sharpness. I ascertain you use of the term "inches" to mean 2"-4", and that is a wholly ludicrous point to measure from. Why not go ahead and use a magnifying glass? That's just as silly a premise to consider as critiquing a image from 2"-4" s and then stating because you can see pixels that such would condemn someone to sitting several feet further away from a Screen than they might otherwise.

I'm sure you could observe every pore on someone's face if you jammed your own face in close enough to theirs, but few people behave as such.

They might get smacked.

In this instance, we are not talking about the normal viewing being done "from inches" but from 9+ feet away, and in that respect there is no visible pixel structure to any normal individual. And that with focus adjusted optimally.

Non-Normals are free to sit back to a point where their Big Screen becomes nothing more than a smaller screen. Too bad for them.

Since your own Theater employs a JVC RS-10 as well as a 106” diag 16:9 Da-Lite, High Contrast Cinema Vision, I's say your biggest issue is with the Da-Lite's own surface structure.

You made the issue of it, not me, claiming there's no visible pixels from inches away. If you now want to say it's not important from a safe distance, then fine.

But it is also true that the bigger you make the screen, the less sharp the image, and the more chance you'll see the SDE, especially with LCD. That's why I went LCOS, and that's why D-Cinema is moving to 4k.

Yes, I made an issue of it because for all intents and purposes, what I said is absolutely true, when such is viewed under any sensible dictate. You though seem to be determined to prove a moot point...I'm not even sure where your interest lies posting on a thread in DIY Screens since you use a Da-Lite Retractable...because you cannot even make an effective judgment based on personally observable experience.

That's because your Screen does not qualify as being a completely smooth surface, therein it will accentuate aspects of a projected image that a smoother surface will not.

Frankly, your using as judgment any determination you might make based on a "inches away" observation to try to prove your point is completely anal. It's you, not I or others who question the point. You seem to want others to believe that a "focused' image on a big screen as viewed from a 1:1 ratio will show obvious pixelation, such that can be resolved by those with normal vision. Or is it just your own eyesight and experiences your touting? My expressed observation is based upon what the majority of End Users will see....or not see.

In short, even at 4K resolution, I'd expect the same argument from you as far as "inches away" goes. For my part, I'll go with the determinations made b Projector Reviewers, my own experiences using "several" such "Pixel Free' PJs, and the expressed opinions given by several hundred individuals equipped with normal eyesight, to whom I have personally given such demonstrations to.

The old methods/ formulas used in determining the distance between seating and screen are outdated, and will continue to be more so as things evolve.

You'll just have to go on guessing, my friend.


Are you telling me a smooth screen hides image details--details like pixel structure? That would not be good. If I can see the pixels up close on my screen, then it appears its texture is not a limiting factor.


It was your "inches" argument, lest you forget, as you just admitted in the same post.


All projectors are pixel free from the right distance, and all can show their pixels from a closer distance. You want to refute that? It's all about finding the optimal distance for a given pixel density.


The old school formula for human acuity is as valid today as ever. Until human eyesight evolves.

I'm quite sure you know I meant the opposite. Texture will enhance both pixelation, SDE, and projected noise / artifacts. Contrast enhancement that comes from a surface having graduations of reflective light to shadow will always make any differences between light to dark more apparent. So too will it enhance defects inherent in that surface...as well as any systematic structure or noise contained within the projected image.

A Contrast enhancing surface that is smooth does not have that caveat. And when such a surface is hit with a projected image that has no observable pixel structure from 12"- 24" away, it certainly won't show such from a 10' distance. So just to make certain you don't continue to misinterpret...a Smooth Screen surface does not "mask" or hide anything...., but it also does not enhance any undesirable aspects of an image. And as I'm certain you know, SDE and/or pixelation "WILL" be enhanced by texture, much the same as a perforated Screen does the same to the point of creating a Morie effect.

That then was / has always been the point. A Screen with excellent surface properties being serviced by a high resolution, High Contrast PJ can be viewed from a much closer distance than currently accepted formulas plugged into Calculators say is advisable.

Hence... the "Old School" moniker.

From almost day one...the realization that the significantly smoother surfaces that many DIY Screens have work to make PJs look their absolute best has been a given within this Forum's Community. You simply missed all that, as has most everybody else involved in dealing with Mfg Screens. Until you do experience such...if ever, you cannot realize the worthiness of such.

You won't find anyone else on this DIY Forum who is active that will dispute the above. It's always been the most basic of premises...as well as simply making good common sense.

All I have to say is that with the help of a certain dude from Mississippi, I just finished my very own DIY screen and the change was DRASTIC! I painted the vinyl side of black out cloth on a 106" 16:9 screen using a Wagner CS DD sprayer and used RS MaxxMudd LL.

The results have been tremendous. Prior to this, I had the same screen size and was using the white cloth side of BOC. Now, the image is sharper and has a 3D pop to it. I am also using an Epson 8350 pj.

Needless to say, my first row of seat is 8.5 feet away and the second row is 12.5 feet away. No need to watch movies inches away from the screen. :-P