8 feet wide to small for CIH

Well mine is only 12" wider, so I'd say go for it.

Mine is 8.75' wide and works quite well.

I lived with a 8ft wide 2.35 screen just fine for five years. Optimum view distance is 2-3x picture height.

I'd also say go for it.

My first screen was a 7ft wide 16:9 screen, but I was always disappointed with scope presentations being smaller. Due to my room being a loft conversion, I was a bit limited, so looked at a form of CIA, but went for an 8ft wide 2.35:1 screen and moved my seating closer so that 16:9 didn't look too small (I kept the seating ratio the same as it was with the 16:9 screen height so it looked just as big as before). That was when I was using a 720 display and anamorphic lens and my seating distance to screen height ratio was 3:1, with my source material being mostly DVD. With BD and 1080 displays, there's no reason you can't sit closer unless you find it personally uncomfortable. If you watch a lot of DVD, then 3 x SH may be preferable due to image quality.

The important thing is seating distance as has been mentioned. I like 2 to 2.4 x screen height ratio (more immersive), but as coolrda says, 2 to 3 is a good ball park area with 1080 and HD source material. Adjust your seating distance so that 16:9 is as tall as you would like it and then 2.35 is just wider and more immersive, as designed.

If you sit too far back, you may find 16:9 looks too small and have the urge to zoom it bigger. That's usually the tell take sign that you need to sit closer.

Gary.

I have a 45" high CIH screen, that equates to a little under 106" wide for scope and 80" wide for 16:9. I'm happy with it, but I'm going by 1.5x the 16:9 screen width for seating distance and I feel it's comfortable.

-Sean

I have a rs-2 and a prismasonic 5000. My room is 11 feet by 14 feet. Projector at back of room ,screen is 45x106. Everything works fine. I overscan a bit to compensate for pincushion on 235 films.

I'd sit at around 2 to 2.4 myself with 1080, (3:1 was with a 720 display, not 1080), but I would experiment to see what suits you.

Gary

The focus is fine on the prismasonic 5000. I t looks great.

I too was forced into a "small" room and my screen is just 8 feet wide as well. My TR is 2.1:1 and whilst I would love to have a bigger screen, that won't happen in this room.

At 2x the image height, the image is massive!

In 'Scope format, my screen is only 78 inches wide. But it works great. It's CIH and goes out to about 2.66 to 1 for anamorphic 65mm stuff. Probably one of the smallest setups on AVS.

I'd say go for it.

my CIH screen is only 7 1/2 foot wide and looks great, I only had a 5 foot wide 16:9 screen before glad I went CIH

There are really plusses to using a smaller screen. One is the incredible sharpness of the picture. A 6 foot wide picture on a relatively inexpensive projector is probably going to look better than a 10 foot wide picture on a very expensive projector. A smaller screen buys you a tremendous increase in brightness, shapness, and contrast. As you increase the size of the picture all these parameters fall off geometrically.

I have a 11ft screen and while it looks very impressive with the lights on and works better with larger crowds it definitely taxes the projector. With the lights out and with each at the proper view distance there's no difference with the exception of the 8ft screen being brighter. My first screen was a 67" wide 16x9 and I would have no problem going back to a small screen in the right room. I still have my 8ft in case I ever buy another home with a smaller room. Two things that always excel in small rooms are projectors and subs.

I've got an 106" wide screen. Similar it seems to several who have posted above. With my JVC RS35 and Prismasonic lense, I am very very happy. We sit about 11-12 feet back and I think it is perfect.

Nick

I do 100" wide, perfect.

I think Mark and Art sit at 2 x SH. SMPTEs closest recommended seating is 2 x SH IIRC.

If you sit in the geometric centre of the seating area of a THX certified theatre, you will be sitting at around 2.4 x the SH which is around 52 degrees IIRC. It's also where they suggest you sit with a full HD 16:9 display when watching good quality HD material. Many tech documents such as CEDIA suggest you start at 3 x SH + or - 1 x SH (so a range of 2 to 4 x SH) depending on what the customer prefers. It even suggests taking the customer to a commercial theatre to see where they usually sit there so they can do the same at home.

I was at a JVC event here in the UK and the seating was deliberately set up to be at 2,4 x the SH because in the UK forum some people didn't realise how close you could sit and often would sit when in a commercial theatre. No one at the event knew what the seating distance was as it wasn't mentioned until after the event, and no one thought they were too close. At one point when the room was full (there were two dem rooms which split the group into two), I was sat in front of the seating so closer to 2 x SH) and it was still very watchable. It's very immersive from there

Quite often when people first install a big screen they never even think about seating distance or relate it to a commercial theatre. With 1080 we can do pretty much the same as at a commercial venue. Film isn't the medium it could be so sitting closer then 3 x SH is probably the limit where immersion and image quality is optimum. With good digital material we can sit closer if we want to, but you may find pixel visibility an issue (depending on pj tech) and a lens may be preferable if you have a scope screen (like Mark and Art).

Gary

I do and I love it. 2x seemed over powering when I first set up my room, but after watching a few films there, I don't like the back row at all anymore.

Nick,

I'm thinking of using your exact setup minus lens. Did you compare the JVC zoom method to using your lens? Differences and worth it on only 106" wide screen.