Two screen choices - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 3Likes
  • 1 Post By Craig Peer
  • 1 Post By jeahrens
  • 1 Post By bud16415
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 19 Old 02-24-2020, 12:15 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
blake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 740
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 766 Post(s)
Liked: 108
Two screen choices

Quick vote please.

MLP (row 1) is 10 feet eyes to screen. There is also a row 2.

Which 2.40 scope screen (with side masking) would you prefer :

140” wide x 58” high (16:9= 103x58”)

130” wide x 54” high (16:9= 96x54”)
blake is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 19 Old 02-24-2020, 08:39 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,239
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2319 Post(s)
Liked: 1218
140"

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #3 of 19 Old 02-24-2020, 11:00 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 17,606
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7794 Post(s)
Liked: 9850
Probably 130” wide x 54” high.
Craig Peer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 19 Old 02-24-2020, 11:07 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,458
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2353 Post(s)
Liked: 1653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Probably 130” wide x 54” high.
I'm with Craig. Still a very close seating distance to screen height ratio and easier to light up for HDR.

jeahrens is offline  
post #5 of 19 Old 02-24-2020, 11:21 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 17,606
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7794 Post(s)
Liked: 9850
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
I'm with Craig. Still a very close seating distance to screen height ratio and easier to light up for HDR.
140" wide could be a bit too big from 10'. My wife would certainly say so.
Craig Peer is offline  
post #6 of 19 Old 02-24-2020, 01:58 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,239
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2319 Post(s)
Liked: 1218
58” high is 2.07 X screen height seating distance.

54” high is 2.22 X screen height seating distance.

2.50 X screen height is like sitting in the middle row of most commercial theaters.

You asked what I would prefer and based on the fact you have a second row in the planning I would want the first row pretty close to what I would want as max immersion so as to not give away too much of the second rows immersion. I personally am ok with 2.0 X SH for CIH and ok with 1.5 X SH for IMAX.

Thus my answer of 140” above.

If I was @Craig Peer I would sit in the first row and let my wife sit in the second row.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #7 of 19 Old 02-24-2020, 03:37 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 17,606
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7794 Post(s)
Liked: 9850
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
58” high is 2.07 X screen height seating distance.

54” high is 2.22 X screen height seating distance.

2.50 X screen height is like sitting in the middle row of most commercial theaters.

You asked what I would prefer and based on the fact you have a second row in the planning I would want the first row pretty close to what I would want as max immersion so as to not give away too much of the second rows immersion. I personally am ok with 2.0 X SH for CIH and ok with 1.5 X SH for IMAX.

Thus my answer of 140” above.

If I was @Craig Peer I would sit in the first row and let my wife sit in the second row.
If you were me you would only have one row. Everyone in my theater gets a front row seat, and everyone gets to drink the top shelf stuff too. Nobody has to sit in the coach section. Besides, I like to sit next to my wife.
bud16415 likes this.
Craig Peer is offline  
post #8 of 19 Old 02-24-2020, 05:11 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
blake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 740
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 766 Post(s)
Liked: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
58” high is 2.07 X screen height seating distance.



54” high is 2.22 X screen height seating distance.



2.50 X screen height is like sitting in the middle row of most commercial theaters.



You asked what I would prefer and based on the fact you have a second row in the planning I would want the first row pretty close to what I would want as max immersion so as to not give away too much of the second rows immersion. I personally am ok with 2.0 X SH for CIH and ok with 1.5 X SH for IMAX.



Thus my answer of 140” above.



If I was @Craig Peer I would sit in the first row and let my wife sit in the second row.

Lol. Any other votes (what row our wives sit is a whole nother thread !).

Where is (2.07 x screen height) in a commercial theater?
blake is offline  
post #9 of 19 Old 02-24-2020, 05:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,239
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2319 Post(s)
Liked: 1218
Quote:
Originally Posted by blake View Post
Lol. Any other votes (what row our wives sit is a whole nother thread !).

Where is (2.07 x screen height) in a commercial theater?
Most common seating in theaters falls between 2.0 and 3.0 X SH as I understand. So 1/3 to 2/3 back is my guess without doing the math.

Wives is a whole different matter. You are correct.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #10 of 19 Old 02-24-2020, 05:29 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
blake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 740
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 766 Post(s)
Liked: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Most common seating in theaters falls between 2.0 and 3.0 X SH as I understand. So 1/3 to 2/3 back is my guess without doing the math.



Wives is a whole different matter. You are correct.


Okay. I was advised 2.0 x SH is nearly first row ?
blake is offline  
post #11 of 19 Old 02-24-2020, 05:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,239
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2319 Post(s)
Liked: 1218
Quote:
Originally Posted by blake View Post
Okay. I was advised 2.0 x SH is nearly first row ?
Measure the height of the monitor you are typing this on and then double that and put your eyes that distance from the monitor. That will simulate 2X immersion. Play a movie on your computer and see what you think. Or better yet do it with your TV playing a scope movie. Measure the height of the image and double that. then try 2.5X.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #12 of 19 Old 02-25-2020, 08:23 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 17,606
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7794 Post(s)
Liked: 9850
Quote:
Originally Posted by blake View Post
Okay. I was advised 2.0 x SH is nearly first row ?
My seating distance - at least with my 2.35:1 screen, equates to the front of the middle section at a commercial theater. My 16:9 screen - maybe a little closer, but not being as wide, it doesn't seem as immersive over all. It might help to find someone with a home theater nearby and bring a tape measure ( or a Magnolia / Best Buy ) and see things in person.
Craig Peer is offline  
post #13 of 19 Old 02-25-2020, 10:17 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,239
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2319 Post(s)
Liked: 1218
Quote:
Originally Posted by blake View Post
Okay. I was advised 2.0 x SH is nearly first row ?

Here is a good review comparing SMPTE and THX specs and their relative placement in commercial theaters showing screen height also as a factor in CIH.

http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/2013314viewing-angles/

One thing to keep in mind if you review some commercial theaters testing immersion is the upward angle of the more immersive distances. It is one thing to watch 2X SH where your eyes are lined up with the center or slightly blow the center of the screen and another where you your eyes line up with the bottom of the screen. IMAX addressed this best with their stadium seating. At home with a single row you have lots of freedom a double row you have to think about screen height / immersion a little different.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	seating chart.jpg
Views:	33
Size:	72.0 KB
ID:	2690044  

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #14 of 19 Old 02-25-2020, 10:36 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,239
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2319 Post(s)
Liked: 1218
I will add to my last post and the logic behind THX specs (maybe a little dated) and what I observe reading 100s of these screen size seating distance posts over the last few years.

It seems to me with 1080p and now 4k people in general are migrating towards greater than THX immersion still well within the range it covers but if you polled a lot of people here you would find the average closer than the THX sweet spot.

The other thing I have observed is I hear far more people now with 4k wishing they had more immersion than they thought they wanted over time. Most people that enjoy movies but don’t have a FP HT watch at home on large TVs and go to a FP theater maybe once a month or every other week, when you get a theater at home you will be watching 1-2 movies a day most likely. There is something with getting accustomed to immersion that makes a lot of people like it more.

I thought about this a lot and found it true in my case. I also only have a single row and found it hard to lock onto one screen size that suited us both equally not to mention our guests that see FP movies maybe 2-3 times a year. For those reasons and others I sized my image to a max size and then do a variable size presentation method with zoom to accommodate all our needs. My theory is you can go smaller but you can’t go bigger.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #15 of 19 Old 02-25-2020, 01:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,458
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2353 Post(s)
Liked: 1653
2.2x seating distance to screen height is still going to be plenty immersive enough for 4K. And one of the prime concerns for 4K is getting enough light output to make HDR workable. Definitely going to be easier to attain on the smaller screen.
Craig Peer likes this.

jeahrens is offline  
post #16 of 19 Old 02-25-2020, 04:45 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 17,606
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7794 Post(s)
Liked: 9850
Plus, too close to a big screen can give some people that “ tennis match “ watching effect. One needs a happy medium.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Craig Peer is offline  
post #17 of 19 Old 02-25-2020, 05:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markmon1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,439
Mentioned: 143 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6228 Post(s)
Liked: 4280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
140" wide could be a bit too big from 10'. My wife would certainly say so.
No way. My friend has a 185" 16x9 at 11 feet and its awesome. No way too close.

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 #18 of 19 Old 02-25-2020, 05:19 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 17,606
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7794 Post(s)
Liked: 9850
Quote:
Originally Posted by markmon1 View Post
No way. My friend has a 185" 16x9 at 11 feet and its awesome. No way too close.


Everyone has their opinions. We are not all going to agree, obviously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Craig Peer is offline  
post #19 of 19 Old 02-26-2020, 07:00 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,239
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2319 Post(s)
Liked: 1218
The 140” screen is about 16% larger than the 130” screen so as mentioned above if that 16% means a lot in terms of brightness then that is a factor. Almost no one can notice a 16% change in brightness unless it is on the edge brightness limits. Otherwise our eyes just adjust for the change.

As to us guessing at what the OP might like his question in his first post was “Would you prefer.” I took that as what size given those two sizes with a fixed seating distance of 10’ I would prefer.
Craig Peer likes this.

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