The Plains Theater - Page 22

Can you explain your thought process here?

I would have assumed that the position specified was for imaging or SBIR or both and not dependent on having sealed or ported mains. (Have I misunderstood what you're saying?)

My thoughts begin with, trust the professional. I'm pretty sure that's where they end, too.

That assumes that a pro decided where to put your speakers and knew what sort of speakers you were going to use.

Here's what I think I know: imaging depends on precise stereo balance. Somewhere along the lines, something is influenced by directivity (sound power, toe-in, etc.). Balancing toe-in and directivity with placement should determine the width of the sweet spot, I think. Then there's the strength of the lateral reflection to consider - again related to directivity and toe-in.

I've just written this without a whole lot of careful thought (obviously), and my pizza just came out of the oven. So I should probably reconsider this tomorrow, having slept on it.

Made me laugh. You might be ready to take things to the next level and use the obligatory "bed sheet as a screen" to see how your eyes feel while watching content.

Of the 2 renderings for the stage, I like the 2nd one.

As alternatives to the angled columns, you could do regular flat columns on the front wall like they did here:


Dennis had a list of screen walls in his portfolio, not sure if they are on his website. But there was "far east" one that had a large black area and the screen basically floated in the middle. Similar to what I posted above, but imagine it all black. That's what I asked for mine. I've gone from a rimless screen, to 2" border, then 4", then full masking and the increase it blackness surrounding the image was a positive step each time.

I did want to talk about screen sizes without offending anyone. Two of probably the most famous DE designs (due to the posters continual involvement at AVS) are Jeff (thebland) and Art Sonneborn. Both eventually upgraded to larger screens than the initial DE design. Jeff is 14' wide scope, and Art I think is 16'. Tony has similar dimension to you and I, and is at 14'. Mine was originally 12', I asked for 13', but Dennis felt anything more was too much. I've wondered if I put in 12' or 13' would I want to go bigger later as well? So it struck a cord with me, knowing you've got a DE design and are underwhelmed by the screen size.

Some of the reasoning on screen size I think is to protect you from using a larger screen than you can afford to light. With a large screen, you're either looking at an unsatisfyingly dim image after a few hundred hours on the bulb, or presentation style projectors which sacrifice color/quality for brightness, or expensive 3chip DLP. I told Dennis a Lumis was the top end of my budget, so that in part dictated my max screen size. I'm not sure what projector you intend to use, or if that was communicated, but that might be part of the reason you have the size screen you do. Even something like the Sony vw1000 which is twice as bright as the JVC's is said to top out on screens "less than 12' wide".

For what it's worth, I have made the mistake of too wide for the viewing distance in the past, and it was down right uncomfortable to watch. So I think better to err on the side of slightly underwhelmed than slightly uncomfortable. There is also consideration for multiple rows. Is your money seat on 1st or 2nd row? If 2nd row, it might be underwhelming in order to keep first row from being completely overwhelmed.

In any case... my suggestions would be to try looking at that size screen with an actual image on it, consider an all black backdrop, and see if you like the side filler they did in the pic. I think Capt Randy has the angled columns on the side of the screen and a lot of DIY builds do it for the corner bass trapping (with screens going to the edge of the room). It's a preference thing, but not a look I care for.

The last render is exactly what I was trying to describe. Looks good.

Regards,

RTROSE

Oh, the "warm fuzzy" deal huh? Well let me tell you something. Here at the RTROSE household Mrs RTROSE deals in "warm fuzzies" and "cold pricklies". If the Mrs doesn't get a warm fuzzy about something or gets a cold prickly then she is being told by her intuition that it is a no go, deal breaker, game over type of thing. Now my senses are not as attuned as hers so sometimes I have to rely on her and her warm fuzzies and cold pricklies. Believe it or not I understand, and I'm being serious about the Mrs. No joke. Sometimes it just all comes down to that warm fuzzy feeling we get when we look at something and it just flat out works.

FWIW I still like the last render.

Regards,

RTROSE

Rabident, great post!

My money row has always been the middle row with the third row bar being a close second. My front row is a bit too much for my taste. I don't mind sitting there to give guests better seats. In every crowd we've had, there are a few that prefer the front row. I watch movies from the middle row and sporting events from the bar.

I'm on my 5th generation of projector now and the advancements in just the 15 years I've had them is astonishing. For that reason, I have faith in how fast technology will catch up to screen size. When I started, I was far beyond limits at just 96". I suppose I still am.

The design is for the 13'. We just got power turned on last week, so I need to tape it out. Like Tony, my view ratios were optimized for 2nd row. I choose 2nd row because the riser makes the screen appear lower. I need to get down to FL and see a DCI projector in an HT setting. Unless I go with a brighter projector, I'll likely keep the 13' to start.

Ok, quick question for you guys. Why the 2nd/middle row as the prime seating area? Is it personal preference? Design consideration, acoustics, or just the way it worked out? Without any kind of official design input I had always intended the front row to be the money seats, I think I got it accomplished, but it with dumb luck. Did not know if a professional design had any influence in the middle row or if that is what you wanted so that is why things were done the way they were. I hope my ramblings are not confusing, as I think I just may have confused myself.

Regards,

RTROSE

Oh, and on the "cold pricklies". Mrs. RTROSE came up with that and has trademarked the phrase, so each time you say it, you owe me er ah I mean her a quarter. I'm hoping to pay for v2.0 with the royalties!

+1 - I like the last render as well. Clean, simple and functional.

I understand completely where Tony and Rabident are coming from on the larger screen size...and I can't say that I don't have that same tendency myself. But as mentioned before in another post, there are a number of downsides by going too big. One is that you need a light cannon to fill the screen which typically means big, expensive projector with terrible contrast numbers. Another is that if you don't buy the light cannon you are then left with positioning the projector at the low end of the focal range just to have a chance at filling the screen with adequate light. Third, if you are considering 3D, the effect won't be nearly as good without a nice bright image to start with, particularly with active shutter glasses. Fourth, if you put the same exact amount of resolution on a much larger screen, the perceived resolution will not be as great because the picture has been blown up so large. And if I recall correctly, you were not going to spend the money on an anamorphic lens and opt for lens memory instead....this will exacerbate your resolution problem on a larger screen since you are only dealing with a 25% drop in resolution (810 lines with zooming) and a 30% drop in brightness since you wouldn't be using all the available pixels. Then there is the uncomfortable viewing angle situation previously mentioned.

Minimum acceptable light is typically around 11 ft./lamberts. THX recommends 16 or 17 ft. lamberts of brightness as standard. Before locking in on a screen size I would spend some serious time at projectorcentral.com with the short list of probable projectors for your theater to work everything out in terms of calibrated brightness, focal range and the range of mounting distances. I think you'll find in your projector price range that 12' width on a 2.35:1 aspect ratio is about the max. Any larger and you start to sacrifice picture quality, resolution and brightness for size. I would also play around with viewing angles on this website's calculator to find a good balance of what is optimal....meaning what is the biggest screen you can get that satisfies all of the professional criteria? I still think you'll end up with a 12' width max.

Good luck!

PS - My drywall hanging is unfortunately still progressing and not complete. Like you, I thought I could get it done in one massive work weekend, but I had some hiccups that beat me down. Full write-up in my thread, by the way.
Edited by TMcG - 1/28/13 at 6:31am

Ok, gotcha. I think the difference is the consideration of the third row. I only have two rows so the second row is still very good. I could see how it would diminish if I had to take another row into consideration. Of course I am also only 10 feet away from a 114" diagonal 16:9 screen far smaller than 11, 12, 13, or 14 ft screens you guys are talking about. No wonder all you guys need light cannons!

Regards,

RTROSE

To my eyes this one is the clear winner.

And I couldn't agree more....you have to do something to bridge the gap and I think your design does exactly that.

^^^+1 I really like this render. Even though I think this is the one that you are lacking the warm fuzzy on. To me and TMcG it looks "right". I can't remember, where you looking at the Panny PJ? I was looking at some PJ's and using the calculator to see what is needed for such a big screen. There are not many "budget" PJ's out there that fit the bill. Guess that is why they make screens with "gain" right?

Regards,

RTROSE

Good discussion! I'll get a chance to go measure my distances after dinner... post to come!

Regarding second row prime, I followed the same thought process thinking it makes the first and third rows closer to the target. I also avoided maneuvering the steps in the front of the room. It also put my eyes right at 1/3 from the bottom of the screen (which is a typical goal). Lastly, it positions me at distances from my rear surrounds that I liked. The rears end up about 9' behind me.
Edited by tony123 - 1/28/13 at 5:03pm

My seating measures the following: 1st row = 140" (.83 width) 2nd row = 215" (1.28 width) 3rd row = 263" (1.56 width). So my prime seating does hit that popular distance.

FWIW, I've never felt a need for more brightness even though the capabilities of my projector and screensize calculate poorly. The real world compromise is not as drastic too me. Your mileage may vary.

Well, I have to say Tony, what you and J_P_A say about the 2nd/middle row makes perfect sense. I was not thinking about accommodating all three rows I was thinking along the lines of my two rows. Which in my case making the front row the primary spot still works out really well for my space considering I only have two rows. The funny thing is I actually watch TV from the back row and movies from the front row.

Regards,

RTROSE

Wow, just went through your thread quickly.Love watching the house being built. Very nice. Love that process, especially when others are actually supplying the labor. Theater room is looking good, will follow along for the ride.

Bud

My 2nd row prime was to get my eyes where I wanted them. I like dead center vertically, which would have made the screen too low from 1st row. I also like being off the floor. It was something I asked Dennis for. He basically takes what you ask for and works it in unless it would be bad for performance. So I assume it's ok for my space, but I don't know if it's acoustically desirable or not.

I would interested to see what your other FOV preferences were. For example, I watch video on an i-phone much farther away than 1.2x screen width. On my computer monitor I like ~ 1.5x. With my old 10' wide screen I liked to be about 12' to 13' back, which is what I gave Dennis as my preference (1.2x - 1.3x). But I've been going to IMAX a lot without having a HT and I've noticed I like to sit pretty close. So I was wondering if FOV preference was non-linear? There is definitely a preference for watching something big from far -vs- little from near. Does the increased physical distance let our eyes relax a little bit, and allow a slightly higher FOV comfort level as physical distance goes up?

In many cases, your tolerance for being close is reflected (nice pun) in the resolution of the projector ... the higher the resolution, the closer you may feel comfortable.