Is 167" too big for current Blu-ray content?

Depends on the projector.

If you just consider the height then it's equivalent to 131" 16:9 . So I guess that should be not problem. Plus you are talking about 2.4 gain that should make up for any lumen loss
Don't put a lame projector in front of it though.

Good choice because of the eshift. The image will look much better because of it. Right now I have the X55 with a 120in and will be upgrading to a 160-180in when I move. The bigger the better I think

Don't you need a larger 16:9 screen (not smaller) to get the same height?

I couldn't agree more. I have a 150" 16:9 and I love my screen. Especially when someone see's it for the first time. I definitely believe in getting the biggest screen your PJ and Room can handle. Hre's a nice size comparisson webiste: http://www.displaywars.com/135-inch-16x9-vs-150-inch-16x9

OP said 167" constant height so I assume he meant 167" 2.35:1 format
That makes it 154" x 65"
And with that height 114" x 65" is 131" in 16:9 format

167" 2.35:1 format is indeed 154" x 65". But if there's no a-lens involved, then he's overshooting on 154"x87" or 177" 16x9 format.

The most important variable has been left out of this discussion! What is the seating distance? Size doesn't matter for resolution. Angle of view is the critical measure and you can't know that without seating distance.

That's a 44 degree viewing angle.

20/20 vision 34 degrees is the approx optimum for 1920x1080 or with your screen size of choice viewing distance of 21 feet........but immersion may take a priority over PQ

12' seating distance, 171" wide 2.35:1 screen. Not too big at all.

I don't at 12'.....

No, but the image will appear soft than if viewed from 21ft. but bigger, which is best? that is such a personal thing. With 4K around the corner things should be fine!

Very misleading statement. To some people an image @ 21 ft may appear soft to them, other not and other may find an image @16 ft not soft. What are you basing this on?

Simple 20/20 vision, compare the image from 21ft and then from 16ft, the image viewed from 21ft will be sharper than the image viewed from 16ft. For an individual with 20/20 vision the optimal image quality will be seen from 21ft, if ones vision is better than 20/20 the image will be sharper from an even greater distance.

Will 16' be optimal under those circumstances....no. Will the image be too soft, acceptable? 167" screen and 16' with 1920 x 1080.....that's up to the viewer to decide.......

55-60 pixels per degree with 20/20. At 44 degrees that requires a source and display capable of 2420 x 1361...........4k source & displays should more than address those needs.

So you are assuming that everyone has 20/20 vision by making that statement? Again, very misleading statement that does not take into account a lot of variables.

In reality most people have better than 20/20(specially youthful eyes), 20/20 is the cut off point beyond this(20/20+) is when eye sight starts to fade and sight correction is required. So for people with well functioning eyes(20/20 or better) the ratios hold true.

Some research done by NHK is quite revealing, the low ratio set has much to gain with 4K. 2K simply does not support some of the ratios used here, if image quality is the priority. No doubt it's a trade off where immersion(image size) takes presidence over image quality, each to their own.
Edited by Highjinx - 12/27/12 at 10:59pm

Really? And your source is? So "Now" you are going to include some of those variables? How very convenient of you.

Argumentative arn't you!

Let's make this simple the average(over35) persons eyesight is 20/20, most healthy younger eyes are better than 20/20 , thus the above ratios apply.

If ones eye sight is less than 20/20 it would be adviseable to get eye correction, once corrected to the average, the above ratios apply.

NHK research indicates that 55-60 pixels per degree is the lower end of the scale, thus the above ratios plus apply.....not viewing closer distances but greater. 4k will give the OP 90 pixels of image data per degree from his chosen distance not 43 pixels per degree as he would get currently from/with 2K(keep in mind the current 2k consumer source/s will be BluRay not DCi with 6x the bit rate)

Sources?.....Google could be helpful.

20/20 into the 80's http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120305/srep00300/fig_tab/srep00300_F2.html

JD see page 4 para 3 for NHK Data: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=does%204k%20really%20make%20a%20difference&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpro.sony.com%2Fbbsccms%2Fstatic%2Ffiles%2Fmkt%2Fdigitalcinema%2FWhy_4K_WP_Final.pdf&ei=SYXdUOysAefSmAXhvICYDw&usg=AFQjCNEORVZ4cFyi_zTTVwHAeXml93tfNA

Keep in mind that they are talking Dci type sources not BluRay with 1/6 the bitrate of Dci.....thus for consumer sources we need to sit further back if PQ is the priority.......factor in sub par encodes and the issue is amplified.
Edited by Highjinx - 12/28/12 at 2:39pm

What is your seating distance to the first and last rows, with a 150" screen?

A lot of digital cinema theatres have "only" FullHD resolution. Its ok I think.