Sitting at 2.0x image height - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 2Likes
  • 2 Post By ScottAvery
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 7 Old 02-02-2020, 11:42 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
blake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 490
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Sitting at 2.0x image height

Is seating at 2.0x the image height (of a scope 2.40 screen) considered the closest that is comfortable for HD and 4K content ?

I do realize it’s personal preference. Where would this distance be analogous to sitting in a commercial theater ? 1/4 of the way back ?
blake is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 7 Old 02-03-2020, 12:00 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markmon1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,067
Mentioned: 132 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5902 Post(s)
Liked: 3977
Quote:
Originally Posted by blake View Post
Is seating at 2.0x the image height (of a scope 2.40 screen) considered the closest that is comfortable for HD and 4K content ?

I do realize it’s personal preference. Where would this distance be analogous to sitting in a commercial theater ? 1/4 of the way back ?
Honestly, if you want to benefit from native 4K, that seating distance seems about right. I'd say you want to be *inside* 1 screen width away. Forget what you typically see in the theater. Those theaters are not centered around benefiting from 4K resolution and are typically not even 4K.

Video: JVC RS4500 135" ST130 G4 screen in batcave, htpc nvidia 1080ti madVR.
Audio: Anthem mrx720 running 7.1.4, McIntosh MC-303, MC-152, B&W 802d3 LR, B&W HTM1D3 center, B&W 805d3 surround, B&W 702S2 rear, B&W 706s2 x 4 shelf mounted for atmos, Infinite Baffle Subs 4x15 fi audio running on behringer ep4000 + 2x12 fi audio mounted in main chair firing into back.
markmon1 is offline  
post #3 of 7 Old 02-03-2020, 12:02 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,057
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 873 Post(s)
Liked: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by blake View Post
Is seating at 2.0x the image height (of a scope 2.40 screen) considered the closest that is comfortable for HD and 4K content ?

I do realize it’s personal preference. Where would this distance be analogous to sitting in a commercial theater ? 1/4 of the way back ?
I think so. For what it's worth, the SMPTE guidelines for commercial cinemas are 2.0x height as the closest acceptable distance, 3.0x height ideal, and 4.0x height farthest. The original CinemaScope reference, THX reference and Dolby references all converge somewhere between 2.5x and 3.0x height.

For what it's worth, the last truly great home cinema I visited had a Scope screen and the front row was 2.35x height (1.0x width), and I wouldn't have wanted to sit any closer than that - it was comfortable, but truly filled my horizontal field of view.

In terms of commercial cinema, in most auditoriums 2.0x height would be a little closer than 1/4 back I think, although of course there is a lot of variability here, with better cinemas leaving the front of the auditorium empty of seats so that the front rows are not too close.
dschulz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 7 Old 02-03-2020, 05:40 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 17,334
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7616 Post(s)
Liked: 9421
I find just under one screen width away to be about perfect myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Craig Peer is online now  
post #5 of 7 Old 02-03-2020, 08:28 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,103
Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2254 Post(s)
Liked: 1180
I prefer screen height as the reference rather than width or diagonal some use. If CIH is the preferred starting point for all presentation then height is what I think should be used.

From the unofficial reading here from dozens of thread based around seating distance/screen size/immersion I would say most people historically like about 2.5xSH with the trend going closer with each improvement in PQ at home.

Right now I use variable immersion and 2.0xSH is about as close as I would like and 1.5xSH for IMAX content. Many of my guests find that a bit large and with variable I can back them away to a point they like. Likewise if I’m watching content that has a DVD like PQ I back myself away to 2.5 as it improves PQ being slightly less immersive. Much of network TV uses a cinematography process as if it was intended for a smaller screen as well and I’m fine watching TV at 3.0xSH

So in short if all I was watching was modern blockbuster movies in 4k and I was watching alone I would say 2.0xSH would be perfect for me and 1.5xSH for IMAX.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #6 of 7 Old 02-03-2020, 10:26 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottAvery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Great Falls, VA
Posts: 1,963
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 840 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
From the unofficial reading here from dozens of thread based around seating distance/screen size/immersion I would say most people historically like about 2.5xSH with the trend going closer with each improvement in PQ at home.
I think this observation has a lot of merit, particularly for the CIH crowd. 16x9 users probably sit closer (you know, so their scope movies don't make them cry).
Josh Z and Craig Peer like this.
ScottAvery is offline  
post #7 of 7 Old 02-03-2020, 11:07 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,103
Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2254 Post(s)
Liked: 1180
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottAvery View Post
I think this observation has a lot of merit, particularly for the CIH crowd. 16x9 users probably sit closer (you know, so their scope movies don't make them cry).
I agree. There is a compromise most CIW viewers make splitting the difference, and likewise some CIH viewers may take a little more width at the cost of getting enough height in their 1.85 content. It is and will most likely be argued about CIH because Scope plays greater on our peripheral vision and side to side it goes on virtually to infinity. A similar argument on peripheral vision should be made with regards to IMAX but is seldom made. Vision doesn’t suddenly become uncomfortable in ether direction as we walk around everyday in normal life seeing all that our vision can see. We don’t exactly ignore everything above a certain width or height we view it in a different way called peripheral vision.

For me it isn’t about trying to look into these areas non stop just like we don’t twirl our eyes around all day walking around. Something in those areas has to trigger our vision to look there then that becomes our central vision.

Bud
bud16415 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