Yeah, that makes sense to me. In your front row, your non-scope horizontal viewing angle should be pretty similar to your scope image angle in the back row.
This is why I'm planning a constant-area approach -- I won't have a closer row to move to, since the geometry of my room yields unusable screen sizes if I try to get 36 degrees in the second row. And, I'd prefer a somewhat smaller 1.78 image size than I'd get with constant-width, at least for most content.
My actual plan is to use a 1.78 screen (rather than the traditional 2.05 for CIA) so that I can watch IMAX Blu-ray and features like Planet Earth at maximum size, but I'll mask/zoom most 1.78 stuff down a bit, especially some TV content that uses a lot of shaky handheld camera.
Anyway, I'll save the gory details for my own thread when I start it shortly. Thanks for the info!
This is why I'm planning a constant-area approach -- I won't have a closer row to move to, since the geometry of my room yields unusable screen sizes if I try to get 36 degrees in the second row. And, I'd prefer a somewhat smaller 1.78 image size than I'd get with constant-width, at least for most content.
My actual plan is to use a 1.78 screen (rather than the traditional 2.05 for CIA) so that I can watch IMAX Blu-ray and features like Planet Earth at maximum size, but I'll mask/zoom most 1.78 stuff down a bit, especially some TV content that uses a lot of shaky handheld camera.
Anyway, I'll save the gory details for my own thread when I start it shortly. Thanks for the info!
