Bigger Screen VS Sitting Closer - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 16Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 41 Old 08-26-2019, 10:57 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Zoom123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Bigger Screen VS Sitting Closer

Assuming only 2 or 3 people will be watching, all sitting right opposite the screen, is there a difference between having a 110" screen and sitting further VS a 100" and sitting a bit closer so that the same viewing angle is maintained? (with a 4K projector)

I feel that the bigger the screen, the more the "wow" factor and the "cinematic" appearance (especially now that TVs can be 85"+), but maybe this the wrong impression and it is all about the viewing angle when the lights go off?
Zoom123 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 41 Old 08-27-2019, 04:25 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 265
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 6
I have my 100" screen 10' away from me and I think it is perfect. I recently had a home theater meetup with some fellas on the forum, and they mentioned that it was a great solution as well, commenting that it looks fantastic. As an alternative, instead of moving my seating closer, I actually moved my screen closer. Now keep in mind, my "theater" is actually a living room so I normally use my tv. I hang my screen using high strength fishing line, and the roll-up screen is placed on J-brackets (attached to the ceiling) when not in use so that the screen is not obtrusive.
lmidgitd is offline  
post #3 of 41 Old 08-27-2019, 07:04 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,793
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2109 Post(s)
Liked: 1061
Here are the answers I got when I asked the same question a couple years ago.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-di...creen-20a.html

The short answer to your question IMO is yes and no.

For sure if the answer was it is the same then we could just get a 32” TV and sit a foot in front of it and call it IMAX. We know instinctively that would not work. On the other hand IMAX is betting big with their new theaters that moving people closer to a 40’ high screen will be an IMAX experience just like their older 80’ theaters. This has caused people to walk into the new IMAX1.89 theaters and nickname them LieMAX though. All they see is they paid more for a ticket and walk in and find a screen just like the one down the road for half the price. They don’t study the seating distances or the sound system or even the quality of the projection system.

We have two eyes and they are set a few inches apart and each sees a slightly different perspective and allows for depth perception and part of that still works in a dark room where all we can see is the image. We can unconsciously determine image size to some extent. As the image keeps getting larger the space between our eyes doesn’t change and it gets harder to tell. There comes a point where it becomes cinematic.

I don’t have data or science to really answer your question and in the link I attached there are links to some of the science. But for me you are on the edge of this point for me with your 110”-100” comparison. So given those numbers I will say yes it makes a difference. I always say 110” is around the minimum size I feel can trick you into a cinematic experience. That’s not saying 100” is not going to be a completely wonderful image to watch and is still going to be much more cinematic than any 85” TV will ever be. But for me 110” is the cutoff for watching IMAX content with IMAX immersion angles.

Seating distance plays a roll also. As an example my room is small and my seating distance single row is always 8’ from the screen and the max screen size I can project is 110” at that distance my scope movies play at that width just not as tall and my regular 1.85 flat movies I use zoom and reduce them to 100”. TV I reduce even more to around 90” unless it is some of this new prestige TV for lack of a better name like Game of Thrones etc. if my room was larger or wider and I could find a shorter throw projector with 4k I would max out my IMAX size at 120 and keep my seating the same. But that’s just me.

I know the 100”-120” question will be coming up a lot as that seems to be the two sizes the ALR UST screens come in and there is quite a difference in price.

If you want to try something fun get one of these VR goggles that you put your phone in and can watch VR movies and such. They trick your eyes with two similar images one for each eye. Even though the screen is only a couple inches they can give you the feeling the image is enormous. Now if the rest of the PQ was any good they would be on to something. 3D shutter glasses with a projector do this to some extent also. I just want to watch movies though without looking thru anything.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 41 Old 08-27-2019, 07:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 2,129
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 827 Post(s)
Liked: 549
I'll always be a "kid" going to the local "multiplex" and being extremely disappointed to be stuck in the theater with the smallest screen, so bigger will always be more "wow/cinematic" for me.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-ge...eap-build.html
Epson HC3700/HC2000; Screen - 151.5" 16:9/TV or 143.5" 2.35:1/HT at a seating distance of 12-15 feet; Yamaha RXV675 for 7.4; Speakers - Infinity Primus; Subs - 3 Polk PSW10s, 1 BIC F12; Headphones - 5 JVC wireless; Sony 3D Blu-ray player/six pairs 3D glasses.
steve1106 is offline  
post #5 of 41 Old 08-27-2019, 02:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,232
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3732 Post(s)
Liked: 2962
As @bud16415 says the consensus is that human vision is capable of perceiving a difference between two images that fill the same field of view where one is a smaller image at a closer distance and the other a larger image at a further distance. The magnitude of perception difference is going to be directly tied in to the difference in the two screen sizes at their different viewing distances. The difference between 100" and 110" screens and their respective viewing distances to make them fill the same FOV is small enough that the perceptual difference will be very small to the point that many might not notice the difference.

On the other hand the difference between a 100" screen and a 200" screen at twice the viewing distance should be evident to anyone with average vision. Whether any specific screen size difference is great enough to make it worth pursuing is going to vary from individual to individual. As always the best way to know what will work for you is to experiment on a plain painted wall with different image sizes at different viewing distances before buying a screen.
Dave in Green is online now  
post #6 of 41 Old 08-27-2019, 03:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,793
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2109 Post(s)
Liked: 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
As @bud16415 says the consensus is that human vision is capable of perceiving a difference between two images that fill the same field of view where one is a smaller image at a closer distance and the other a larger image at a further distance. The magnitude of perception difference is going to be directly tied in to the difference in the two screen sizes at their different viewing distances. The difference between 100" and 110" screens and their respective viewing distances to make them fill the same FOV is small enough that the perceptual difference will be very small to the point that many might not notice the difference.

On the other hand the difference between a 100" screen and a 200" screen at twice the viewing distance should be evident to anyone with average vision. Whether any specific screen size difference is great enough to make it worth pursuing is going to vary from individual to individual. As always the best way to know what will work for you is to experiment on a plain painted wall with different image sizes at different viewing distances before buying a screen.
Dave is absolutely correct here. with his comparisons, and how much impact the sizes have.

Then there is a bit more illusive concept that I don’t know if there is a science or a method to measure. That being at what point say does an image become “cinematic” given a set of screen sizes and viewing distances. Or maybe even at what point does an image become IMAX like. For the last 50 years we know an image projected to a 80’ tall screen is IMAX like @steve1106 wont dispute that and maybe even a regular movie on a 40’ high screen is more cinematic than one on a 30’ high screen at least he would prefer the large with all other things constant. We also know a 32” TV is never going to cut it as cinematic or IMAX like no matter how close we get to the screen.

So there is maybe a point someplace in between where cinematic starts. I don’t get it from a 65” TV or even an 85” TV. Maybe the point is different for each of us. Or maybe no one but me cares about this. I’m not saying sitting at the same immersion level isn’t going to be amazing watching a movie on a 85” 4k TV just that the experience wont be the same as seeing the movie in a theater with a cinematic feel.

For me right around 110”-120” there is an impact that the screen is large and not just I’m sitting closer. For whatever reason again for me if a FP is sized down to 80”-90” it feels more like a TV image.

IMAX is about super huge screens and also major immersion levels. So it is true no one except maybe some billionaire can have a true IMAX at home. But I feel it is possible to get a taste of IMAX at home with as small as a 110”-120” and proper IMAX immersion levels. Same is true I believe for regular framed movies.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #7 of 41 Old 08-27-2019, 03:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,232
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3732 Post(s)
Liked: 2962
I agree that there is a perception point where TV ends and cinematic begins but I think it's really hard to clearly define. Not only do I think that it varies from person to person but that the perception point can change for us as we accumulate different viewing experiences throughout our lives and are continually exposed to different options. I can recall as a child going to theaters with bigger screens than in many theater complexes today and then going home and watching TV on a 13" screen whereas today 86" TVs are commonly available. For me I don't think going from a 100" to 110" projection image would flip the switch between TV-like and cinematic. The way I see it any image projected on a screen in the dark is already more cinematic than any backlit or emissive TV, and the larger the image the more immersive and cinematic it becomes.
bud16415 likes this.
Dave in Green is online now  
post #8 of 41 Old 08-27-2019, 10:52 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Zoom123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Thank you all for the advice. I decided to stick with 110" as it was my original plan.
Zoom123 is offline  
post #9 of 41 Old 08-27-2019, 11:40 PM
Member
 
MadmanR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: St. Paul, northeast of Midway
Posts: 103
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 20
As an historical note, the size/distance concerns were (somewhat) addressed by this 'gimmick' over 40 years ago.

One could sit at the end of a fairly long room and still see, clearly, whatever quality your TV set was already capable of displaying (Trinitron/Linitron et al) from the then rapidly-advancing shadow-mask tubes of the day.

https://2warpstoneptune.files.wordpr.../beamscope.jpg

Turned a 19" CRT into 30" of rather nicely viewable screen real estate.

Worked best for a single viewer in a darkened room (basement, usually) with this VERY STRONG caveat for purchasers:

"KEEP AWAY FROM DIRECT SUNLIGHT!"

Why?
Essentially a large magnifying glass, this Fresnel lens was capable of "...burning a hole in a hardwood floor in under a minute."
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	beamscope.jpg
Views:	26
Size:	68.6 KB
ID:	2608176  

"In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof." - John Kenneth Galbraith

Last edited by MadmanR; 08-27-2019 at 11:56 PM.
MadmanR is offline  
post #10 of 41 Old 08-28-2019, 04:07 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markmon1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,035
Mentioned: 104 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5066 Post(s)
Liked: 3290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoom123 View Post
Assuming only 2 or 3 people will be watching, all sitting right opposite the screen, is there a difference between having a 110" screen and sitting further VS a 100" and sitting a bit closer so that the same viewing angle is maintained? (with a 4K projector)

I feel that the bigger the screen, the more the "wow" factor and the "cinematic" appearance (especially now that TVs can be 85"+), but maybe this the wrong impression and it is all about the viewing angle when the lights go off?
At same viewing angle, the smaller screen will be brighter since its so much easier to light up and that may make the picture better, depending on how much light you have to spare.

The large screen does have a bigger wow factor even at the same viewing angle, but I think you get use to it pretty quickly either way. My friend has a 185" screen and sits 11 feet away. I have a 135" and sit 7 feet away so we have similar viewing angle. His room is much larger to accommodate the larger screen. This requires more SPL to equate to same volume levels etc. His room is 16x21 mine is 12.5x21. I find my room is a little more cozy feeling when I'm in here alone.
Craig Peer and Will P like this.

Video: JVC RS4500 135" screen in pure black room no light, htpc nvidia 1080ti.
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, 2 sub arrays both infinite baffle: 4x15 fi audio running on behringer ep4000 + 4x12 fi audio running on 2nd ep4000.
markmon1 is offline  
post #11 of 41 Old 08-28-2019, 05:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
airscapes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 6,000
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 505 Post(s)
Liked: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoom123 View Post
Assuming only 2 or 3 people will be watching, all sitting right opposite the screen, is there a difference between having a 110" screen and sitting further VS a 100" and sitting a bit closer so that the same viewing angle is maintained? (with a 4K projector)

I feel that the bigger the screen, the more the "wow" factor and the "cinematic" appearance (especially now that TVs can be 85"+), but maybe this the wrong impression and it is all about the viewing angle when the lights go off?
When the lights go off.. in what color room, Black hole "Black velvet covered floor, walls and ceiling ..then yes .. But any visible cues to the reality of the screen size, not so much..

Doug
Planar PD8150 with DC4 DMD paired with a Dalite HP 2.8 120"
http://www.airscapesart.com

 
airscapes is offline  
post #12 of 41 Old 08-28-2019, 05:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
humbland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,512
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1057 Post(s)
Liked: 301
It's been mentioned many times before, but (with regards to viewing angles) there is a large degree of personal preference.
Not to oversimplify matters (against AVS decoder ring code)
When you go to the local cinema, do you like to sit up front, in the rear, or (like me) in the middle?
When setting up your HT, try and match your cineplex "field of view". Worked for us...
Craig Peer likes this.
humbland is offline  
post #13 of 41 Old 08-28-2019, 07:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,793
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2109 Post(s)
Liked: 1061
@Dave in Green and @airscapes I agree reflective screens vs emissive screens lend themselves to being cinematic as well as blacking out the visual tells of room and screen size. It is kind of simple to know cinematic when you see it and feel it but it is something personal and hard to predict as well.

@Zoom123 I think 110” is going to be a very good choice for you and will look huge.

@MadmanR I had almost forgot about those things. I also remember my dad bringing home a filter frame to stick to the front of our B&W TV to turn it into color. It was blue on the top and brown on the bottom and yellow in the middle. Didn’t work to good except for cowboy movies.

@markmon @humbland The reason I went with a variable size presentation method and did it by mounting my projector to an inclined front to back ceiling sliding mount was for both brightness and allowing me to adjust the image size based on content and also viewers likes. I have family members that are back row people and myself I like high immersion sometimes. I don’t want to subject them to my immersion when I can give them what they like and still enjoy a less immersive show with them. Then there is the brightness. When I play movies CIA+IMAX most of the time for myself it is in the room every light out and the room 100% blacked out with black ceiling and very dark walls. I can play it as huge as I like and still have no issues with enough lumens in that setting. When I watch a lot of TV I move the projector a lot closer and it gets a lot brighter and that brightness is just what I need to have some task lighting in the room. There is no reason to want to watch all content super immersive IMO.

Then there is one other factor. In the old days of home theater way back 16 years ago when we were getting started I hooked my FP setup to my cable TV feed. There was some controversy in doing that as many wanted to leave their projectors for movies only and just use them a few times a week. The feeling was that using it for everything spoiled the movie experience as you were getting used to the immersive image where it really wasn’t warranted. I was on the fence on that as I saw I was getting indifferent to what the media was but I also enjoyed the lesser media better large and hated to watch it on my then large 32” TV. Now that I have the ability of watching IMAX at a distance of 8’ on a 110” 16:9 area and TV at about 75”-80” area with some lights on. There is a special feeling when I set up a movie like Dunkirk to watch. It allows the most comfortable seats in the house and the best sound system to be used for every type of viewing and still makes blu-ray movies a special treat. I feel variable immersion is the best of all worlds.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #14 of 41 Old 08-28-2019, 09:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
humbland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,512
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1057 Post(s)
Liked: 301
[

@markmon @humbland The reason I went with a variable size presentation method and did it by mounting my projector to an inclined front to back ceiling sliding mount was for both brightness and allowing me to adjust the image size based on content and also viewers likes. I have family members that are back row people and myself I like high immersion sometimes. I don’t want to subject them to my immersion when I can give them what they like and still enjoy a less immersive show with them. Then there is the brightness. When I play movies CIA+IMAX most of the time for myself it is in the room every light out and the room 100% blacked out with black ceiling and very dark walls. I can play it as huge as I like and still have no issues with enough lumens in that setting. When I watch a lot of TV I move the projector a lot closer and it gets a lot brighter and that brightness is just what I need to have some task lighting in the room. There is no reason to want to watch all content super immersive IMO.

Then there is one other factor. In the old days of home theater way back 16 years ago when we were getting started I hooked my FP setup to my cable TV feed. There was some controversy in doing that as many wanted to leave their projectors for movies only and just use them a few times a week. The feeling was that using it for everything spoiled the movie experience as you were getting used to the immersive image where it really wasn’t warranted. I was on the fence on that as I saw I was getting indifferent to what the media was but I also enjoyed the lesser media better large and hated to watch it on my then large 32” TV. Now that I have the ability of watching IMAX at a distance of 8’ on a 110” 16:9 area and TV at about 75”-80” area with some lights on. There is a special feeling when I set up a movie like Dunkirk to watch. It allows the most comfortable seats in the house and the best sound system to be used for every type of viewing and still makes blu-ray movies a special treat. I feel variable immersion is the best of all worlds.[/QUOTE]

Food for thought:
To increase your viewing pleasure and maximize your presentation options, try adding a second screen.
We had a DaLite HP 2.8 110" 16x9 HD screen for years.
Following Craig Peer's lead, we added a second 125" 2.35:1 "scope" screen (Thanks Craig)
Combined with lens memory, it has been the single biggest improvement to our HT set up (Atmos is 2nd).
Sports in brighter HD and movies in Widescreen. The best of both worlds.

Last edited by humbland; 08-28-2019 at 02:03 PM.
humbland is offline  
post #15 of 41 Old 08-28-2019, 01:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,793
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2109 Post(s)
Liked: 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by humbland View Post
[


Food for thought:
To increase your viewing pleasure and maximize your presentation options, try adding a second screen.
We had a DaLite HP 2.8110" 16x9 HD screen for years.
Following Craig Peer's lead, we added a second 125" 2.35:1 "scope" screen (Thanks Craig)
Combined with lens memory, it has been the single biggest improvement to our HT set up (Atmos is 2nd).
Sports in brighter HD and movies in Widescreen. The best of both worlds.
As I mentioned in the other thread I think the two-screen method is ideal like @Craig Peer is doing. I have even considered 3 screens with a higher gain material for one of them for 3D viewing.

For now I’m ok with the one stealth screen and doing a combination of running in a brighter mode and moving the projector for a smaller brighter image when using the room with adding task ambient light back in.

I don’t watch enough 3D content to really care if it is a little smaller than maxed out.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #16 of 41 Old 08-28-2019, 01:19 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 16,154
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6866 Post(s)
Liked: 8099
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
As I mentioned in the other thread I think the two-screen method is ideal like @Craig Peer is doing. I have even considered 3 screens with a higher gain material for one of them for 3D viewing.

For now I’m ok with the one stealth screen and doing a combination of running in a brighter mode and moving the projector for a smaller brighter image when using the room with adding task ambient light back in.

I don’t watch enough 3D content to really care if it is a little smaller than maxed out.
Chris Seymour ( Seymour Screens ) out did me by having 3 screens !
Craig Peer is online now  
post #17 of 41 Old 08-28-2019, 01:27 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,793
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2109 Post(s)
Liked: 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Chris Seymour ( Seymour Screens ) out did me by having 3 screens !
If I were Chris Seymour I would have at least 10 screens in a row.

Now that I know he has only 3 I will revise my comment and say I would like 4! Or maybe a roll top and bottom where I roll off of one and on to the other. That way I could have a dozen screens like frames of a film and just stop at the size, material and AR I wanted.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #18 of 41 Old 08-28-2019, 01:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JRock3x8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northwest Indiana
Posts: 3,942
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1842 Post(s)
Liked: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoom123 View Post
Assuming only 2 or 3 people will be watching, all sitting right opposite the screen, is there a difference between having a 110" screen and sitting further VS a 100" and sitting a bit closer so that the same viewing angle is maintained? (with a 4K projector)



I feel that the bigger the screen, the more the "wow" factor and the "cinematic" appearance (especially now that TVs can be 85"+), but maybe this the wrong impression and it is all about the viewing angle when the lights go off?


I’m a certified nut job but if I’m not FOV 50 or closer I don’t even want to watch the movie.

But I’m crazy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
markmon1 likes this.
JRock3x8 is online now  
post #19 of 41 Old 08-28-2019, 03:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
m0j0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,388
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 540 Post(s)
Liked: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by humbland View Post
It's been mentioned many times before, but (with regards to viewing angles) there is a large degree of personal preference.
Not to oversimplify matters (against AVS decoder ring code)
When you go to the local cinema, do you like to sit up front, in the rear, or (like me) in the middle?
When setting up your HT, try and match your cineplex "field of view". Worked for us...
Totally agree! I’m also a middle of the theater type viewer. My wife shakes her head but when I sit down I use my fists to measure the screen width and like about 4 fists in width. I try to duplicate that to some degree at home but it’s okay if I get about 3 1/2 fists in width as well.
m0j0 is online now  
post #20 of 41 Old 08-28-2019, 04:23 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 16,154
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6866 Post(s)
Liked: 8099
Quote:
Originally Posted by m0j0 View Post
Totally agree! I’m also a middle of the theater type viewer. My wife shakes her head but when I sit down I use my fists to measure the screen width and like about 4 fists in width. I try to duplicate that to some degree at home but it’s okay if I get about 3 1/2 fists in width as well.
I just tested my theater with my 118" wide / 128" diagonal scope screen. My FOV is about 5 1/2 - 6 " fists ". Seating is just under 10' from the screen.
Craig Peer is online now  
post #21 of 41 Old 08-28-2019, 05:33 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,793
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2109 Post(s)
Liked: 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
I just tested my theater with my 118" wide / 128" diagonal scope screen. My FOV is about 5 1/2 - 6 " fists ". Seating is just under 10' from the screen.
Do you have long arms and small hands? My golf buddies tell me I have short arms and deep pockets.

They do say when the sun is one fist from the horizon you have one hour of daylight left.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #22 of 41 Old 08-28-2019, 05:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,793
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2109 Post(s)
Liked: 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRock3x8 View Post
I’m a certified nut job but if I’m not FOV 50 or closer I don’t even want to watch the movie.

But I’m crazy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I knew that about you when I saw your avatar and he has 2.35:1 glasses on.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #23 of 41 Old 08-28-2019, 05:41 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 16,154
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6866 Post(s)
Liked: 8099
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Do you have long arms and small hands? My golf buddies tell me I have short arms and deep pockets.

They do say when the sun is one fist from the horizon you have one hour of daylight left.
Both are average.

" They do say when the sun is one fist from the horizon you have one hour of daylight left. " - except when you are still on a rock climb with no headlamp. Then that will be the shortest hour ever !
bud16415 likes this.
Craig Peer is online now  
post #24 of 41 Old 08-28-2019, 05:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,793
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2109 Post(s)
Liked: 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by m0j0 View Post
Totally agree! I’m also a middle of the theater type viewer. My wife shakes her head but when I sit down I use my fists to measure the screen width and like about 4 fists in width. I try to duplicate that to some degree at home but it’s okay if I get about 3 1/2 fists in width as well.
These new Cineplex theaters it’s hard to judge when they build whatever size screen will fit and you don’t know if the movie is 2.35 or 1.85. Sometimes the middle of the theater is in the front half. A better system would be to see how many hands high the screen is if it is a scope screen. I just checked mine and I’m 6 fists wide for scope and IMAX.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #25 of 41 Old 08-29-2019, 10:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,232
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3732 Post(s)
Liked: 2962
There's definitely a correlation between age and how close one likes to sit from a screen image. Remembering back to my childhood all the kids at the local cinema would fight over seats in the front row while teenagers and younger adults would sit a little further back and older adults even further back. Over the years I've been at many homes where when the TV was on the little kids would want to sit on the floor or even stand 2 or 3 feet from the TV screen to the point of blocking the view of adults seated further back. Of course as with any screen size/viewing distance discussion the age thing is a generality and there are exceptions. As they age some folks remain as hooked on stuffing their FOV with screen image as kids.
Dave in Green is online now  
post #26 of 41 Old 08-29-2019, 07:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,793
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2109 Post(s)
Liked: 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
There's definitely a correlation between age and how close one likes to sit from a screen image. Remembering back to my childhood all the kids at the local cinema would fight over seats in the front row while teenagers and younger adults would sit a little further back and older adults even further back. Over the years I've been at many homes where when the TV was on the little kids would want to sit on the floor or even stand 2 or 3 feet from the TV screen to the point of blocking the view of adults seated further back. Of course as with any screen size/viewing distance discussion the age thing is a generality and there are exceptions. As they age some folks remain as hooked on stuffing their FOV with screen image as kids.
We have some new toddlers to the family and I have been watching them watch TV. What a generation they will grow up in with technology. Maybe it is part of getting older and having lived thru so much improvements gives a perspective. Here are these two little boys age one and two starting off life with 75” 4k TV, and yes they walk up and watch it from 3’ away. I moved up beside them to take a look and it didn’t look too bad. I asked the one year old what he thought of the PQ and he said it was ok but he liked OLED better. The two year old agreed and said he wished dad would ditch the sound bar and upgrade to IMAX Enhanced audio as he was ready to rock some enhanced 4k BD and get the full HDR effect.

I remembered back to my youth and I just enjoyed Roy Rogers and Trigger, watching immersive of course.
Will P likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #27 of 41 Old 08-29-2019, 09:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,994
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoom123 View Post
Assuming only 2 or 3 people will be watching, all sitting right opposite the screen, is there a difference between having a 110" screen and sitting further VS a 100" and sitting a bit closer so that the same viewing angle is maintained? (with a 4K projector)

I feel that the bigger the screen, the more the "wow" factor and the "cinematic" appearance (especially now that TVs can be 85"+), but maybe this the wrong impression and it is all about the viewing angle when the lights go off?
all my opinion of course, but based on experience...

i don't think i would visually notice a difference between those two scenarios. the screen size is close enough that moving the viewing distance would probably make for the same experience. there is however some things that can't be compensated for so easily. Having a larger screen means more people can be in the sweet spot. I have a roughly 130" screen, and i'd argue it's really only great for one person, or good for two. i personally wouldn't be happy watching a movie for the first time anywhere outside of those two central seats. there is also some undefined quality that makes a difference. when comparing extremes, there is an obvious difference between a 13" screen 2 feet away and a 130" screen 20feet away even if the FOV is identical. lastly, this is maybe more opinion based than the other two, but i also think having a larger room allows for better audio. There are certain people out there with more speakers per square foot than a bestbuy who would disagree with me, but if you're going to stick with a fairly basic set up(minimal acoustical treatments, in avr calibration, etc) then i can say i'm been more impressed with a cheap audio set up in a large room, than a slightly more expensive audio set up in a smaller room.

again, i don't think 10% change in screen size will be significant for any of this to be relevant, but if i read between the lines and extrapolate, i do feel at some point size is more than just FOV. sometimes i wish i could experience things for the first time all over again. i remember being absolutely blown away watching dvd's on our first 16:9 tv, a 46" from about 6-7feet away. nothing more expensive in this hobby than 'getting used to' your gear, haha.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1130K, 7.1/5.1.2 audio
Sources: HTPC, PS3, XBOX360, Wii
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #28 of 41 Old 08-30-2019, 08:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,793
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2109 Post(s)
Liked: 1061
I will agree with everything @fierce_gt posted above except how many good seats you can get in front of a 110” screen in a single row. Of course this is really a subjective opinion and you will have to see it with your own eyes to make the call for yourself.

I was faced with a small theater room that was a rectangle shape. Both directions I had the option for a 110” screen and 4 seats. I could do an AT screen and two rows of two seats one way or a non AT screen the other way with one row of 4 seats. Both ways the two seats front row or the two center seats would have the same FOV etc. the trade off was with two rows the back row got good angles but poor immersion. The other way the two outside seats got poorer angles but great immersion. At my old house first HT I had two rows in a similar room.

I mocked it up both ways and found that a 110” screen 8’ seating distance I liked all in one row better.

There are some other benefits. First being you don’t need a riser is a big one. Secondly it is a more social way to view, think about 2 couples going to a movie you always sit in the same row and share popcorn and laughter etc. The third thing is heads in the way. Without anything between you and the screen it is possible to place the screen any height that works. If you go with a 16:9 screen or a stealth wall screen things like IMAX movies can be lower at the bottom of the image keeping the central part of the movie the same for scope as IMAX. If your projector has lens shift you can lower the movie if you are sitting upright and raise it if reclined, with no worry of heads in the way.

For me viewing inline with the sides of the screen is not a big deal. Of course being right in the sweet spot is best and also best for sound. If I was designing a room around sound the longer skinner room would be better without a doubt. Another trade off but I think movie sound can be worked out ok the other way also.
Craig Peer and MadmanR like this.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #29 of 41 Old 09-04-2019, 12:52 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 22,814
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1943 Post(s)
Liked: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
... i don't think 10% change in screen size will be significant...

A 110" screen is 21% bigger than 100".

I went from a 50" to a 55" daytime TV, and while not dramatic, the difference is appreciable.
MadmanR likes this.

Noah
noah katz is offline  
post #30 of 41 Old 09-05-2019, 02:44 AM
Member
 
howiee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 86
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 13
This is an interesting topic and one that's been on my mind recently. In our last home setup we went through a bunch of grey and white screens - 92" - 100" - 110" - 120". Around 6 in total with differing viewing distances. The general progression was seats moving back and the screen getting bigger - and every size jump was an improvement to my eyes. This wasn't a dedicated room, which probably has an impact on perceived size, but either way the screen looked noticeably bigger with each leap and the experience was better for it. I suspect moving to 130"/140"/150" etc etc would yeild similar improvements. What i'm not sure about is whether this will be the case in a velvet batcave of nothing. In our new setup we want a main scope experience - possibly with the option to remove top and bottom masking for imax - and can't power one with the 16:9 size we're used to. It will likely drop to around 100-110". Still plenty big, but I remember the improvement when moving from 110" to 120" and am loathe to not have that in the new bells and whistles (and likely last) home cinema we build. In a batcave the difference betwen 100/110" and 120" may not be that noticeable, however. I'll probably end up caving the room once it's built and experiment with lost of different painted screens before settling and am hoping (it will save alot of money!) that the blacker the cinema the more we can fool the eyes into thinking the screen is bigger than it is.
MadmanR and rossandwendy like this.
howiee is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Screens

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