Does CIH seating distance logic disregard field of view angles altogether? - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 23Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 62 Old 03-16-2016, 07:53 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ddigler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,995
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1103 Post(s)
Liked: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMartin56 View Post
I'm going through a similar exercise myself. I have an A lens on my 40ES and watch from 15 feet. I couldn't decide between a 125 inch and 138 inch 2.35 screen...

I ultimately decided on the 125 inch for a number of reasons : a) it helps with my speaker placement, b) the smaller size helps with perceived image clarity with lower quality sources, and most importantly c) I can always move my seats FORWARD if I wish... The layout of the room doesn't allow me to move them BACK. So if I want the effect of the larger screen I'll just move my recliner forward.

I like sitting 2/3rds of the way back in the theater if that helps.
So many dif opinions on screen size/viewing distance. Cool stuff thanks Martin.
ddigler is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 62 Old 03-16-2016, 08:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,135
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2091 Post(s)
Liked: 1398
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddigler View Post
So many dif opinions on screen size/viewing distance. Cool stuff thanks Martin.
Yup it really is a personal preference. The main reason I was pushing to experiment with the 140" scope setup was to avoid the hassle of 2 screens or 4 way masking. Neither are insurmountable, but if you find you can live with one CIH screen it's just much simpler. And I find that width is far less hard to adjust to than height.
ddigler likes this.

jeahrens is online now  
post #33 of 62 Old 03-16-2016, 09:13 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,832
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2135 Post(s)
Liked: 1075
There are a lot of people that’s rooms are not quite wide enough for CIH myself included. You then have to make some compromises. AMartin for instance is thinking he might move his seating closer and that works fine but may limit how many viewers you will be able to handle without forcing viewing at too wide an angle. The other compromise some of us make is being able to get closer to CIH than what you could get with a 16:9 screen. For sure scope looks better wider than a 16:9 size image. In my case I can do about 90% scope width and 100% 16:9 and I go about 110% on 4:3. Some with zoom and some with a 16:10 projector.

As a side note if anyone uses a A-lens with a WXGA 16:10 projector the area in a scope BD is 800 lines of image and a WXGA is 800 lines tall my projector does the compression into the full 800 lines so I think you would get fairly good pixel mapping at least in that direction. I don’t have a lens or I would try it. But it is the same end resolution you get with the zoom method with a 1080 projector.
ddigler likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 62 Old 03-16-2016, 09:24 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ddigler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,995
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1103 Post(s)
Liked: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Yup it really is a personal preference. The main reason I was pushing to experiment with the 140" scope setup was to avoid the hassle of 2 screens or 4 way masking. Neither are insurmountable, but if you find you can live with one CIH screen it's just much simpler. And I find that width is far less hard to adjust to than height.
glad you suggested it. really felt fine to me and the fam at 140" scope - prob going to go this way in the end. May just have to live with a smaller than ideal 16:9 size (110" instead of the desired 120").

I'm also considering taking it to 150" scope and reducing it to 140" for high action movies. This would allow the 59" CIH which now gets me to 120" 16:9. Obviously the anything under 150" scope would leave bars but I could cook up masking down the road if it bothers me if not best of all worlds...
ddigler is offline  
post #35 of 62 Old 03-17-2016, 04:52 PM
 
AMartin56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,750
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2166 Post(s)
Liked: 1150
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
There are a lot of people that’s rooms are not quite wide enough for CIH myself included. You then have to make some compromises. AMartin for instance is thinking he might move his seating closer and that works fine but may limit how many viewers you will be able to handle without forcing viewing at too wide an angle.
Luckily I don't have enough friends that care about home theater. I'll probably only ever need about four seats and that's doable in a single row. If we have a Super Bowl party it will take over the entire house anyways so we'd be using multiple TVs...I wouldn't have to cram everyone on front of the projector.

I watched The Big Short last night. I really feel like I made the right choice for me. 125 inch 2.35:1 at about 15 feet is right about where I like to sit in the theater.
AMartin56 is offline  
post #36 of 62 Old 03-18-2016, 03:50 PM
Member
 
kendog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wgtn, New Zealand
Posts: 57
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMartin56 View Post
Luckily I don't have enough friends that care about home theater. I'll probably only ever need about four seats and that's doable in a single row. If we have a Super Bowl party it will take over the entire house anyways so we'd be using multiple TVs...I wouldn't have to cram everyone on front of the projector.

I watched The Big Short last night. I really feel like I made the right choice for me. 125 inch 2.35:1 at about 15 feet is right about where I like to sit in the theater.
We sit 12.5 feet back from our 140 2.35 screen.
Feels great for both 16x9 and 2.35 images. It's a AT screen with all the speakers behind and velvet on walls, ceiling and floor so the picture is just floating in front of you.
We even have some left over velvet for our legs, so they vanish when you put your feet up.
kendog is offline  
post #37 of 62 Old 03-18-2016, 06:57 PM
 
AMartin56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,750
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2166 Post(s)
Liked: 1150
Quote:
Originally Posted by kendog View Post
We sit 12.5 feet back from our 140 2.35 screen.
Feels great for both 16x9 and 2.35 images. It's a AT screen with all the speakers behind and velvet on walls, ceiling and floor so the picture is just floating in front of you.
We even have some left over velvet for our legs, so they vanish when you put your feet up.
I've tested with a 138 inch 2.35 image so I could probably tolerate that at twelve feet but it would be borderline too close for me. I'd love to have a AT screen but my room doesn't really allow for that.
AMartin56 is offline  
post #38 of 62 Old 03-19-2016, 06:01 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ddigler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,995
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1103 Post(s)
Liked: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMartin56 View Post
Luckily I don't have enough friends that care about home theater. I'll probably only ever need about four seats and that's doable in a single row. If we have a Super Bowl party it will take over the entire house anyways so we'd be using multiple TVs...I wouldn't have to cram everyone on front of the projector.

I watched The Big Short last night. I really feel like I made the right choice for me. 125 inch 2.35:1 at about 15 feet is right about where I like to sit in the theater.
Glad it worked out well for you. Still working through the decision myself…
ddigler is offline  
post #39 of 62 Old 03-19-2016, 06:03 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ddigler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,995
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1103 Post(s)
Liked: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by kendog View Post
We sit 12.5 feet back from our 140 2.35 screen.
Feels great for both 16x9 and 2.35 images. It's a AT screen with all the speakers behind and velvet on walls, ceiling and floor so the picture is just floating in front of you.
We even have some left over velvet for our legs, so they vanish when you put your feet up.
@kendog this is almost exactly the way I predict I will end up being set up. Glad to know it's working well for you.

What type of screen are you using? I need to get on the ball with my false wall and screan design as it's coming up quickly…
ddigler is offline  
post #40 of 62 Old 03-19-2016, 01:50 PM
Member
 
kendog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wgtn, New Zealand
Posts: 57
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddigler View Post
@kendog this is almost exactly the way I predict I will end up being set up. Glad to know it's working well for you.

What type of screen are you using? I need to get on the ball with my false wall and screan design as it's coming up quickly…
It's an Indigo screen purchased in New Zealand.
Details here if you are interested.
kendog is offline  
post #41 of 62 Old 03-21-2016, 04:53 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ddigler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,995
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1103 Post(s)
Liked: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by kendog View Post
It's an Indigo screen purchased in New Zealand.
Details here if you are interested.
@kendog - thanks for the info. A bit expensive for the budget I'm on and I'm looking for a DIY solution ATM. Really appreciate all the insight though...
ddigler is offline  
post #42 of 62 Old 04-01-2016, 06:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Killer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 440
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Can't wait for this to be available.


I'm 11' away from a 125" 2:35 and 100" 16:9 works for me.
Killer is offline  
post #43 of 62 Old 04-01-2016, 07:45 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ddigler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,995
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1103 Post(s)
Liked: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killer View Post
Can't wait for this to be available.
https://youtu.be/tQ_rFT3BWok


I'm 11' away from a 125" 2:35 and 100" 16:9 works for me.
Thanks for the info.

@Killer Has that thing been advertised for a release date yet? MSRP out yet? Can't be cheap... Just might be worth the wait and money though. Don't want to build a screen and have this thing released within the same week lol
ddigler is offline  
post #44 of 62 Old 04-02-2016, 08:40 AM
Senior Member
 
Killer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 440
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddigler View Post
Thanks for the info.

@Killer Has that thing been advertised for a release date yet? MSRP out yet? Can't be cheap... Just might be worth the wait and money though. Don't want to build a screen and have this thing released within the same week lol

no word yet on either availability or pricing.
Killer is offline  
post #45 of 62 Old 04-02-2016, 09:33 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ, Telluride, CO, & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 3,392
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 531 Post(s)
Liked: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddigler View Post
So many dif opinions on screen size/viewing distance. Cool stuff thanks Martin.
You are on the right track to do the homework like you are, and you are getting really good advice/opinions here. I have one observation and a suggestion.


First, most of the sizes vs distances suggested here are putting you definitely in the range to need UHD resolution. Just saying so that you plan ahead.

Secondly, explore where you like to sit in a fine commercial cinema. Go to one early (or stay late) and move forward and aft studying the impression the varying amounts of the screen (let's say a scope screen) occupy your vision. Come up with some reference for that width. Maybe it's where the edges of the screen are in relation to the edges of your eyeglasses, if you wear them...or something similar. Then go home and go to work with some blue masking tape on a wall. Find the size and distance that will emulate your nominal experience at the commercial cinema. If the distance is not a variable, then you will just be adjusting the width of the blue tape screen. Hopefully, what you discover will fit in the wall space you have available.

Happy hunting.
Cam Man is offline  
post #46 of 62 Old 04-02-2016, 10:07 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,832
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2135 Post(s)
Liked: 1075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post
You are on the right track to do the homework like you are, and you are getting really good advice/opinions here. I have one observation and a suggestion.


First, most of the sizes vs distances suggested here are putting you definitely in the range to need UHD resolution. Just saying so that you plan ahead.

Secondly, explore where you like to sit in a fine commercial cinema. Go to one early (or stay late) and move forward and aft studying the impression the varying amounts of the screen (let's say a scope screen) occupy your vision. Come up with some reference for that width. Maybe it's where the edges of the screen are in relation to the edges of your eyeglasses, if you wear them...or something similar. Then go home and go to work with some blue masking tape on a wall. Find the size and distance that will emulate your nominal experience at the commercial cinema. If the distance is not a variable, then you will just be adjusting the width of the blue tape screen. Hopefully, what you discover will fit in the wall space you have available.

Happy hunting.
Great advice. I always recommend people take a tape measure along to the theater and once in the seat they like measure the screen at arms length. Assuming your arms don’t change in length when you get home sit where your seating will be and do the same with someone sticking blue tape on the wall.

As to UHD resolution you may be correct and I may take some heat here but the charts that are circulating around the web that show the benefit points of different resolutions (here is one site) https://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

I personally feel these charts overstate the importance of higher resolutions to some degree. I base this on lots of information on this site and others where people list their seating distances and what projector they are using and having no problem with PQ caused by resolution. I also know in my own home theater where I sit and what the chart would recommend and the two don’t line up. I would say anyone that has a set up look up your current setup and experiment some by moving in closer and decide for yourself if you need the extra resolution.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #47 of 62 Old 04-02-2016, 11:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ, Telluride, CO, & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 3,392
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 531 Post(s)
Liked: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Great advice. I always recommend people take a tape measure along to the theater and once in the seat they like measure the screen at arms length. Assuming your arms don’t change in length when you get home sit where your seating will be and do the same with someone sticking blue tape on the wall.

As to UHD resolution you may be correct and I may take some heat here but the charts that are circulating around the web that show the benefit points of different resolutions (here is one site) https://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

I personally feel these charts overstate the importance of higher resolutions to some degree. I base this on lots of information on this site and others where people list their seating distances and what projector they are using and having no problem with PQ caused by resolution. I also know in my own home theater where I sit and what the chart would recommend and the two don’t line up. I would say anyone that has a set up look up your current setup and experiment some by moving in closer and decide for yourself if you need the extra resolution.
Hi Bud. Also a good technique.


BTW, Bud's tool that does the trig on subtended viewing angle is a perennial. I use it a lot.


I think your tool on resolution vs screen size vs distance is very good. Notice some folks here mentioned 130" diagonal at 12'; good example of benefiting from 4K. Of course, visual acuity plays a role. I sit near that line where I could benefit from 4K (130" diagonal at 15'), but like you said, I'm not quite as sensitive to that as some...despite having about 20/15 corrected vision.
Cam Man is offline  
post #48 of 62 Old 04-02-2016, 11:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ, Telluride, CO, & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 3,392
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 531 Post(s)
Liked: 642
Demanding of Focus

And hasn't HD really made the issue of focus during the shoot more critical than ever! As a feature film camera operator, I really notice out of focus shots, even if they are just a short duration (called a "buzz"). I remember one of the first features I saw in HD (Moulin Rouge) and the quantity of buzzes blew me away! Holy crap, the pressure is really on now! That said, we are seeing fewer of them in the digital era because you can use as a viewfinder a nice big, bright 7" HD monitor. It's much tougher to help with focus through the optical system of a film camera. Even a huge film like The Force Awakens has a couple of misses here and there. My hat is off to operator Colin Anderson for doing such a fine job on the film, though.

Ahh yes...we have an awakening coming on Tuesday, don't we! Can't wait. Having two big nights of screening parties next weekend.
Cam Man is offline  
post #49 of 62 Old 04-04-2016, 12:36 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ddigler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,995
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1103 Post(s)
Liked: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post
You are on the right track to do the homework like you are, and you are getting really good advice/opinions here. I have one observation and a suggestion.


First, most of the sizes vs distances suggested here are putting you definitely in the range to need UHD resolution. Just saying so that you plan ahead.

Secondly, explore where you like to sit in a fine commercial cinema. Go to one early (or stay late) and move forward and aft studying the impression the varying amounts of the screen (let's say a scope screen) occupy your vision. Come up with some reference for that width. Maybe it's where the edges of the screen are in relation to the edges of your eyeglasses, if you wear them...or something similar. Then go home and go to work with some blue masking tape on a wall. Find the size and distance that will emulate your nominal experience at the commercial cinema. If the distance is not a variable, then you will just be adjusting the width of the blue tape screen. Hopefully, what you discover will fit in the wall space you have available.

Happy hunting.
@Cam Man - I appreciate the input here thanks! Uh oh.... UHD huh? My projector is the VPLHW40ES. SXRD I believe... 4k projector not in the budget ATM. Can you expand on this UHD requirement? Will my projector not be sufficient at that point for my HT at that point?

In ref to size, already did exactly as you suggest. I did watch a few movies @ 140" 2.35 at 12'6" and it was very nice both in regards to size and clarity IMO.
ddigler is offline  
post #50 of 62 Old 04-04-2016, 01:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ, Telluride, CO, & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 3,392
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 531 Post(s)
Liked: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddigler View Post
@Cam Man - I appreciate the input here thanks! Uh oh.... UHD huh? My projector is the VPLHW40ES. SXRD I believe... 4k projector not in the budget ATM. Can you expand on this UHD requirement? Will my projector not be sufficient at that point for my HT at that point?

In ref to size, already did exactly as you suggest. I did watch a few movies @ 140" 2.35 at 12'6" and it was very nice both in regards to size and clarity IMO.
I understand. Go to the page that Carl provided a link to. Follow the x and y data to see where your situation puts you. For example, my room is 130" wide screen at 15' which lands just inside the purple zone where I could begin to benefit from 4K/UHD. Presuming 20/20 distant vision, this is telling you that if you are in the purple and watching other than 4K/UHD, you will see artifacts. How sensitive you are to those is something that varies per individual.




Cam Man is offline  
post #51 of 62 Old 04-04-2016, 01:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,832
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2135 Post(s)
Liked: 1075
Dirk,

I started a thread today you might want to read. It was a spin off of another thread I linked and it deals with this chart in particular. Read the first post and then read the linked posted. That is where all the relevant thought was given.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-dig...al-acuity.html

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #52 of 62 Old 04-05-2016, 04:49 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ddigler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,995
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1103 Post(s)
Liked: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post
I understand. Go to the page that Carl provided a link to. Follow the x and y data to see where your situation puts you. For example, my room is 130" wide screen at 15' which lands just inside the purple zone where I could begin to benefit from 4K/UHD. Presuming 20/20 distant vision, this is telling you that if you are in the purple and watching other than 4K/UHD, you will see artifacts. How sensitive you are to those is something that varies per individual.




@Cam Man - thanks for the info Man. UHD Projector is going to have to be an upgrade for me as the project has grown in cost already. For the now the HW40ES will have to do The thing is ignorance is truly bliss isn't it? I watched a few movies at 12' and 140" diag 2.35 and was blown away by the PQ haha.

Crazy stuff and gives me something to look forward to someday. I guess I need to make sure the material I choose for my AT screen is '4k compliant' and then I can upgrade the projector whenever at that point right?
ddigler is offline  
post #53 of 62 Old 04-05-2016, 06:41 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ, Telluride, CO, & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 3,392
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 531 Post(s)
Liked: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddigler View Post
@Cam Man - thanks for the info Man. UHD Projector is going to have to be an upgrade for me as the project has grown in cost already. For the now the HW40ES will have to do The thing is ignorance is truly bliss isn't it? I watched a few movies at 12' and 140" diag 2.35 and was blown away by the PQ haha.

Crazy stuff and gives me something to look forward to someday. I guess I need to make sure the material I choose for my AT screen is '4k compliant' and then I can upgrade the projector whenever at that point right?
A lot of us are in the same boat...and maybe it's for the best as UHD and now HDR are shaking out. Although at the size of your screen you won't have any moire issues with 4K on weaves like Seymour XD, at that viewing distance you will probably benefit from the 4K weave. One thing to consider with that material is that it has about unity gain or a little less, IIRC. That and the size of your screen may begin to challenge your lumens. Find a lumen calculator. I forget where I found the one I use, although probably from somebody on AVS. You can plug in your screen size, AR, and projector lumens, then see where you max white luminance will be. Shoot/design for the teens. If your room is really dark, you can get away with less.

If you are short on lumens, you could pick up some with an anamorphic lens in your installation, depending on the throw ratio. Down the road when it's new projector time, you might want to consider the new JVCs for many reasons, but they have become light canons which you will eventually need. I need that too, but am waiting for the UHD/HDR issues to shake out.

I just saw your DIYSG build thread links. It looks like you're having fun with that. I took a jump into that during the holidays. I have an awkward niche for a center speaker, and the 88 Special fit, so I started there. I've since gone on to four Volt-10LXs and will add two more. I would love to use the Fusion-15 Sentinels for my main L/R, but fit is the problem. I'm going to try out Klipsch Heresy IIIs in those niches since they fit, and their crossover to the woofer is about the same as the 88 Special.
ddigler likes this.

Last edited by Cam Man; 04-05-2016 at 06:46 AM.
Cam Man is offline  
post #54 of 62 Old 04-05-2016, 07:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,832
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2135 Post(s)
Liked: 1075
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddigler View Post
@Cam Man The thing is ignorance is truly bliss isn't it? I watched a few movies at 12' and 140" diag 2.35 and was blown away by the PQ haha.
Hey Dirk

I’m not that surprised at your good PQ at your screen size and distance. I don’t think it’s a matter of ignorance is bliss also.

I saw you stopped by the other thread I mentioned and saw the adjusted numbers I put on the chart. If we go by those numbers it’s saying you are right in the honey pot with your setup.

Time will tell if anyone wants to actively join in that thread and try and reset the numbers. For myself personally those new numbers are what I will be working to as my own personal standards.
ddigler likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #55 of 62 Old 04-05-2016, 08:52 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2388
I posted in your other thread, but NHK found improvement in realness up to 310 pixels/degree in their study, with most benefit occurring up to 120 pixels/degree. Of course it's important to note that this isn't saying you can't have good picture quality at lower resolutions, a lot of us got quite a bit of enjoyment out of 720p and even 480p displays, but that doesn't mean our current 1080p machines aren't better.

Frankly I think the whole resolution thing is overblown, from both perspectives. In practice we really don't have a choice, we all have a budget that we must stick to and we must choose a projector based on that budget. On top of that, the best new quality features always go into the newest, highest end products. When 1080p appeared, manufacturers put all their best technology, best PQ into their 1080p displays, leaving 720p machines behind. Today, the same thing is happening with 4K, if you want the best picture from any given manufacturer, you're necessarily going to be buying a 4K or "4K" display. Sony's 4K projectors wipe the floor with their 1080p models, which have been relegated to entry level status. Same with JVC and Epson (even if they are "Faux K"). You're budget is going to determine the "amount" of image quality you can buy, and the resolution you get will just be a side effect of that.
ddigler likes this.
stanger89 is offline  
post #56 of 62 Old 04-05-2016, 09:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,832
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2135 Post(s)
Liked: 1075
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
I posted in your other thread, but NHK found improvement in realness up to 310 pixels/degree in their study, with most benefit occurring up to 120 pixels/degree. Of course it's important to note that this isn't saying you can't have good picture quality at lower resolutions, a lot of us got quite a bit of enjoyment out of 720p and even 480p displays, but that doesn't mean our current 1080p machines aren't better.

Frankly I think the whole resolution thing is overblown, from both perspectives. In practice we really don't have a choice, we all have a budget that we must stick to and we must choose a projector based on that budget. On top of that, the best new quality features always go into the newest, highest end products. When 1080p appeared, manufacturers put all their best technology, best PQ into their 1080p displays, leaving 720p machines behind. Today, the same thing is happening with 4K, if you want the best picture from any given manufacturer, you're necessarily going to be buying a 4K or "4K" display. Sony's 4K projectors wipe the floor with their 1080p models, which have been relegated to entry level status. Same with JVC and Epson (even if they are "Faux K"). You're budget is going to determine the "amount" of image quality you can buy, and the resolution you get will just be a side effect of that.
Again thanks for posting in the other thread. I will say those people in the <$3000 forum and it is really the <$1000 forum and here in the CIH forum there is a wider mix of budgets with lens and zoom being two widely different priced options and soon to be the 4k zoom people I’m sure.

But I always tell people in the <$1000 forum that your projector is only 1/3 the visual experience your screen and room each take the other 2/3 of the job. For the vast number of those folks spending $10 on the room can equal $100 on the projector and the same for screens that work better in the less than perfect rooms. Lots of folks have budgets they spend 90% on an entry 1080 projector and the other 10% on a white screen and wonder why they can’t watch with a wall of south facing windows mid-day. In those cases 30% going to a 720 projector, 60% to the room and 10% for a DIY dark screen might be the ticket. When guys like ddigler come here with a desire and no experience and confront a chart that says forget it unless you have 4k when he has the firepower for his 140” dream to come true, is when I think we need a way to depict resolution problems differently. In his case he has the projector now and is commenting “ignorance must be bliss” after seeing what he is seeing. Most don’t just say aww its good enough, most are actually blown away and looking on the box the projector came in wondering if they got a secret 8k unit by mistake.

Most newcomers to FP can’t go to Walmart and see a 1080 projector running or go anyplace and see one. I took a leap of faith with my first one 10 years ago. Now we see them a little in school or at work and see the washed out images they produce and that is the only background many have.

Better is always better and costs more for sure. But if you could take a $700 projector back in time 10 years and show it off I wonder what the reactions would be? I don’t think human eyes have evolved much in that ten years but our tastes have I think.
ddigler likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #57 of 62 Old 04-05-2016, 11:48 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2388
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Better is always better and costs more for sure. But if you could take a $700 projector back in time 10 years and show it off I wonder what the reactions would be? I don’t think human eyes have evolved much in that ten years but our tastes have I think.
My point about budget wasn't that more budget is better, it's that you get whatever resolution you get based on your budget. For example I can't take $5000 to Sony and choose between a 4K machine with mediocre contrast/brightness/color and a 2K machine with great contrast/brightness/color, there just isn't such an option. Ignoring resolution, if I want the best picture quality possible with Sony, I have to get a 4K machine, and my budget either will, or won't allow that. Ignoring resolution, if you go to any manufacturer, you just can't get a 2K machine that matches or exceeds the performance of their 4K offerings.

The same thing happened with the introduction of 1080p, when TI introduced 1080p DMDs, it marked the end of the road for 720p picture quality improvements, if you wanted top quality and had the budget, your only option was a 1080p machine, those had the DMDs with the latest contrast improvements.

You'll take your budget, go to the store, and what you walk out with may or may not be 4K but you won't have really had to decide between 2K and 4K. It's probably a little different in the flat panel world because there's been a glut of cheap "4K" flat panels released, but in the projection world, manufacturers just drop the older resolutions on the floor when they start building new ones. Just look at Sony, you'll never see a 2K machine that matches the quality (still ignoring resolution) of their 4K offerings. JVC doesn't even offer an option without e-Shift, and likewise, you're not going to see a pure 2K Epson that matches their LS10000 (though the LS9600 might come close).
ddigler likes this.
stanger89 is offline  
post #58 of 62 Old 04-05-2016, 02:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ, Telluride, CO, & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 3,392
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 531 Post(s)
Liked: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
I posted in your other thread, but NHK found improvement in realness up to 310 pixels/degree in their study, with most benefit occurring up to 120 pixels/degree. Of course it's important to note that this isn't saying you can't have good picture quality at lower resolutions, a lot of us got quite a bit of enjoyment out of 720p and even 480p displays, but that doesn't mean our current 1080p machines aren't better.

Frankly I think the whole resolution thing is overblown, from both perspectives. In practice we really don't have a choice, we all have a budget that we must stick to and we must choose a projector based on that budget. On top of that, the best new quality features always go into the newest, highest end products. When 1080p appeared, manufacturers put all their best technology, best PQ into their 1080p displays, leaving 720p machines behind. Today, the same thing is happening with 4K, if you want the best picture from any given manufacturer, you're necessarily going to be buying a 4K or "4K" display. Sony's 4K projectors wipe the floor with their 1080p models, which have been relegated to entry level status. Same with JVC and Epson (even if they are "Faux K"). You're budget is going to determine the "amount" of image quality you can buy, and the resolution you get will just be a side effect of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Again thanks for posting in the other thread. I will say those people in the <$3000 forum and it is really the <$1000 forum and here in the CIH forum there is a wider mix of budgets with lens and zoom being two widely different priced options and soon to be the 4k zoom people I’m sure.

But I always tell people in the <$1000 forum that your projector is only 1/3 the visual experience your screen and room each take the other 2/3 of the job. For the vast number of those folks spending $10 on the room can equal $100 on the projector and the same for screens that work better in the less than perfect rooms. Lots of folks have budgets they spend 90% on an entry 1080 projector and the other 10% on a white screen and wonder why they can’t watch with a wall of south facing windows mid-day. In those cases 30% going to a 720 projector, 60% to the room and 10% for a DIY dark screen might be the ticket. When guys like ddigler come here with a desire and no experience and confront a chart that says forget it unless you have 4k when he has the firepower for his 140” dream to come true, is when I think we need a way to depict resolution problems differently. In his case he has the projector now and is commenting “ignorance must be bliss” after seeing what he is seeing. Most don’t just say aww its good enough, most are actually blown away and looking on the box the projector came in wondering if they got a secret 8k unit by mistake.

Most newcomers to FP can’t go to Walmart and see a 1080 projector running or go anyplace and see one. I took a leap of faith with my first one 10 years ago. Now we see them a little in school or at work and see the washed out images they produce and that is the only background many have.

Better is always better and costs more for sure. But if you could take a $700 projector back in time 10 years and show it off I wonder what the reactions would be? I don’t think human eyes have evolved much in that ten years but our tastes have I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
My point about budget wasn't that more budget is better, it's that you get whatever resolution you get based on your budget. For example I can't take $5000 to Sony and choose between a 4K machine with mediocre contrast/brightness/color and a 2K machine with great contrast/brightness/color, there just isn't such an option. Ignoring resolution, if I want the best picture quality possible with Sony, I have to get a 4K machine, and my budget either will, or won't allow that. Ignoring resolution, if you go to any manufacturer, you just can't get a 2K machine that matches or exceeds the performance of their 4K offerings.

The same thing happened with the introduction of 1080p, when TI introduced 1080p DMDs, it marked the end of the road for 720p picture quality improvements, if you wanted top quality and had the budget, your only option was a 1080p machine, those had the DMDs with the latest contrast improvements.

You'll take your budget, go to the store, and what you walk out with may or may not be 4K but you won't have really had to decide between 2K and 4K. It's probably a little different in the flat panel world because there's been a glut of cheap "4K" flat panels released, but in the projection world, manufacturers just drop the older resolutions on the floor when they start building new ones. Just look at Sony, you'll never see a 2K machine that matches the quality (still ignoring resolution) of their 4K offerings. JVC doesn't even offer an option without e-Shift, and likewise, you're not going to see a pure 2K Epson that matches their LS10000 (though the LS9600 might come close).
Quite the good discussion going here, guys.

I think ddigler is a big boy. I don't read from his posts that your chart, Carlton, has dashed his dreams. His dreams aren't dashed, but there is a learning curve and, to his credit, he is working his way up on it. He needs to be an informed AV fan/consumer. As he gathers useful information, he will impart his understanding, perceptions, and priorities to the many factors. Then he will make informed decisions that he will likely not regret or feel like he spent unwisely. That's what this site is and always has been about. We "old hats" are offering him good advice. Keep it coming...because I'm sure he appreciates it and will process it all to his benefit. I think he's going to do just fine.
bud16415 and ddigler like this.
Cam Man is offline  
post #59 of 62 Old 04-05-2016, 11:28 PM
Member
 
kendog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wgtn, New Zealand
Posts: 57
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 25
When my wife first saw our 1080p projector (JVCx500) she was blown away, and she is not into this stuff like us so it takes a lot to impress her.
What's interesting is her recent comment, that the best picture upgrade I have made is putting black velvet into the room.
I agree, it's transformed the viewing experience.
kendog is offline  
post #60 of 62 Old 04-08-2016, 09:15 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ddigler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,995
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1103 Post(s)
Liked: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post
Quite the good discussion going here, guys.

I think ddigler is a big boy. I don't read from his posts that your chart, Carlton, has dashed his dreams. His dreams aren't dashed, but there is a learning curve and, to his credit, he is working his way up on it. He needs to be an informed AV fan/consumer. As he gathers useful information, he will impart his understanding, perceptions, and priorities to the many factors. Then he will make informed decisions that he will likely not regret or feel like he spent unwisely. That's what this site is and always has been about. We "old hats" are offering him good advice. Keep it coming...because I'm sure he appreciates it and will process it all to his benefit. I think he's going to do just fine.
Well said Cam! Dream not dashed one bit!

Great discussion with a lot of factors to consider. But alas the difficult decision is made simple by the same old factor as always BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS!! LOL

I had 3 main desires when I started designing my HT (with the help of you all BTW):

1. Bright, big, clear picture (all subjective but I believe I have achieved this for me...)
2. Low lag time for my video games
3. Affordable (subjective I know) projector including qualities listed in #1 and #2 to get my feet wet for a few years as I'm new to the game.

The HW40es seems to fit the bill for me and I expect to be fully satisfied with this thing for awhile (as long as the SXRD panels don't degrade which is a topic of another discussion).
ddigler is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off