Originally Posted by nathan_h
I think after living with non AT screens in various small rooms over the past decade, I'm ready to admit and agree -- and take action. These have been screens optimized for viewing quality in these spaces (three different ones), mostly Stewart, so I've been nervous to take a step back in terms of visual quality. But the new options appear both affordable and to have improved quality.
Have you ever compared Seymour to Falcon? I know, off topic a bit....
Anyway, I'm 10 feet from my front wall (wall mounted screen <-> my eyes, when seated) so if I make a lean hidden space behind a false screen wall of a single foot... well, you can do the math!
(It will be even sweeter if I can find a local buyer for my 120" wide 2.35:1 Stewart screen... which may cover the cost of a new AT screen.)
If you're ten feet away from a twelve-foot screen, your screen is way too big. Half the picture is in your peripheral vision, resolution isn't as good as it would be if the screen was smaller or you were sitting farther back, and you're losing brightness, contrast, and black level. Bigger isn't always better. It's like wider tires on a car that already has wide tires. Hydroplaning is worse, the car will track truck trenches, unsprung weight is higher, steering is slower, etc. The classic screen size formula is viewing distance = screen size + 50%. Pushing the limits, the closest I'd sit to a 12' screen would be 12'. It is totally a matter of taste, though. Hey, I put Tabasco on pizza...
Yeah, we're off topic, but screen choice is important. I haven't compared Seymour to Falcon, but I love the new Seymour products, and when my Screen Research dies, I'll buy one. BTW, I view from around 9' away, and my screen is 7'. The picture has black level, contrast, and pop, even with an older 720p projector.