Stupid question about screen size and viewing distance. - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 13Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 42 Old 03-20-2020, 03:38 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Witchboard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Question Stupid question about screen size and viewing distance.

I eventually plan on upgrading to projection and I'm wanting to get the largest screen I can for my viewing distance. The plan is to upgrade to a 4K projector, but I'm not sure how I should calculate the screen size. From what I've read, with 4K, you should be sitting at 1.5x the vertical height of the screen, but all the online calculators go by diagonal size. I'm wanting to go with a 2.35:1 screen where I may be able to upgrade my projector with a anamorphic lens in the future to fill it out, but I don't want the 16:9 to be so small that it won't feel like a major upgrade from what I've got. Is the viewing distance for 4K projection different than 4K television?

Rumble & Frenzy - My Mini-Marty Build
Screaming Eagles - My Fusion-15 Sentinel Build
Witchboard is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 42 Old 03-20-2020, 03:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 273
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 176 Post(s)
Liked: 216
i believe it was 3x the size if the screen for distance. used to be anyway.

the technology has improved so much, that 3x is not practical anymore with the HD options out there.

i am in firm belief that nowadays, it’s whatever you feel comfortable with. if you wanna sit 6ft from a 77” 4k supertv, so be it.

example. i have a 55C8 and we sit 9ft from it. i would like to get a 65” or 77” because i feel it would be beneficial, but it’s fine right now so.....

with a projector, you may want to get the screen size that fits whatever one you get.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LG 55C8, Pioneer Elite VSX-LX503, Panamax M5400, Microsoft Xbox One X, Nvidia Shield Pro
Definitive Technology: BP9060 Front left/right/CS9040 center/A90 front Atmos/ProMonitor 800 rear Atmos/Mirage: MX bookshelves rear left/right
Rythmik FVX15
MATTHEW PATIENT is online now  
post #3 of 42 Old 03-20-2020, 03:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 2,535
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1385 Post(s)
Liked: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Witchboard View Post
I eventually plan on upgrading to projection and I'm wanting to get the largest screen I can for my viewing distance. The plan is to upgrade to a 4K projector, but I'm not sure how I should calculate the screen size. From what I've read, with 4K, you should be sitting at 1.5x the vertical height of the screen, but all the online calculators go by diagonal size. I'm wanting to go with a 2.35:1 screen where I may be able to upgrade my projector with a anamorphic lens in the future to fill it out, but I don't want the 16:9 to be so small that it won't feel like a major upgrade from what I've got. Is the viewing distance for 4K projection different than 4K television?
The A lens would have to be removed when viewing 16:9 content.

There are many factors that contribute to how far away you should sit and screen diagonal:
projector technology
projector and/or aditional lenses
internal processing (of projector)
settings
calibration
tone mapping algorithm
source (hardware)
settings in hardware chain
contrast
quality of source material
resolution that the material was shot at
post processing
type of content (fast moving, static)
internal/texture resolution (for video games)
type of screen fabric
room environment
ambient light
dust
software and settings
visual acuity
seating distance
personal preference, or what the viewer is used to


It varies greatly.
A starting point is to project the image on the wall and see what looks best.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-di...ed-angles.html

Last edited by noob00224; 03-20-2020 at 03:53 PM.
noob00224 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 42 Old 03-20-2020, 04:28 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Witchboard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by noob00224 View Post
The A lens would have to be removed when viewing 16:9 content.
Correct, which is also expensive and the reason why I would have to upgrade to one later.


Quote:
There are many factors that contribute to how far away you should sit and screen diagonal:
projector technology
projector and/or aditional lenses
internal processing (of projector)
settings
calibration
tone mapping algorithm
source (hardware)
settings in hardware chain
contrast
quality of source material
resolution that the material was shot at
post processing
type of content (fast moving, static)
internal/texture resolution (for video games)
type of screen fabric
room environment
ambient light
dust
software and settings
visual acuity
seating distance
personal preference, or what the viewer is used to


It varies greatly.
A starting point is to project the image on the wall and see what looks best.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-di...ed-angles.html
I currently have an 83" rear projection DLP HD TV which has a 40" screen height. Front row is 105" and rear is 148" currently. So I'd be looking for a screen size to maximize my current viewing distance in regards to 4K. Thanks noob. I'll check your provided link.

Rumble & Frenzy - My Mini-Marty Build
Screaming Eagles - My Fusion-15 Sentinel Build
Witchboard is offline  
post #5 of 42 Old 03-20-2020, 05:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 2,535
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1385 Post(s)
Liked: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Witchboard View Post
Correct, which is also expensive and the reason why I would have to upgrade to one later.



I currently have an 83" rear projection DLP HD TV which has a 40" screen height. Front row is 105" and rear is 148" currently. So I'd be looking for a screen size to maximize my current viewing distance in regards to 4K. Thanks noob. I'll check your provided link.
Sounds like an 125-140" 2.35:1 screen would be ok, very generally speaking.

Just with 4K, just because a movie is released in 4K does not mean it was shot in 4K, or the effects are done in 4K. On capable projector from a regular seating distance there is a difference. There's about 80 titles shot in 4K so far, excluding TV.

With 4K though, it's kind of a misnomer. The biggest improvement to 4K is not the resolution, but the HDR. And this is where the problem is. Since projectors can't reach the nits value of a TV, the source image has to be tone mapped to what the projector is capable of. Every manufacturer has it's own algorithm. Some are better than others.

Outside the latest generation of JVC projectors, all models have static tone mapping. Which means the projector tone maps to the highest brightness in the movie. If the brightness is lower then it has to be adjusted manually.

Latest gen JVC have dynamic tone mapping. It's automatic.
External boxes that can do dynamic tone mapping are excessively expensive, although it does depend on the budget.
A relatively cheap but not simple solution is a HTPC with madvr, but no streaming.
If you're interested and have a PC with an ok GPU you can try madvr's HDR tone mapping right now, even if the projector is not 4K and capable of WCG. A 4K UHD disc can bring an improvement over a 1080p Blu ray.

In a few years hopefully there will be more accessible solutions.
noob00224 is online now  
post #6 of 42 Old 03-20-2020, 05:06 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Witchboard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by noob00224 View Post
Sounds like an 125-140" 2.35:1 screen would be ok, very generally speaking.

I got around the same thing. I used the math that was provided in the video which yielded a 100" diagonal 16:9 screen with a height of 49". Determined that a 2.35:1 acoustically transparent screen from Silver Ticket with the same height is a 127.75" diagonal, so I've got a rough estimation now.


Quote:
In a few years hopefully there will be more accessible solutions.


It will be a few years before I can upgrade, so here's hoping. ^_^

Rumble & Frenzy - My Mini-Marty Build
Screaming Eagles - My Fusion-15 Sentinel Build
Witchboard is offline  
post #7 of 42 Old 03-20-2020, 05:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Geraldton - 250miles from Perth Western Australia
Posts: 696
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 380 Post(s)
Liked: 163
I sit almost 1:1 distance to screen width - 3.6m from 3.6m wide 2.35:1 screen and for me it is just about perfect.
I have an old 1080p projector with manual zoom - the image is still superb at that distance and I solved the 16:9 / 2.35:1 problem by setting it to fill the screen for 2.35:1 source and then let it overfill the screen with 16:9 source. Sure you lose the top and bottom of the 16:9 image but the increase in size is worth it and most times we don't even notice the missing bits. The only time it is an issue is for 4:3 source (music videos mainly) or closeups where you lose the tops of peoples heads and when playing games/fast forwarding/rewinding/subtitles etc when the icons are off the screen.
But we are more than happy to live with those compromises and if it is really detrimental it just means I have to get up on the step stool and adjust the zoom.
niterida is online now  
post #8 of 42 Old 03-21-2020, 08:40 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’m going to weigh in on my thoughts on 4K, A-lens, Scope CIH, Screen size, Seating distance, etc.

This is all my opinion and that has been gathered thru reading a lot of others opinions and boiling the data down for myself.

4K is such a good resolution the benefits of improving resolution by doing compression of the source and expanding it back thru an additional A-lens is minimal and lens loss using any lens of 1080p quality will negate the improvements. Thus you will need a 4K rated lens and they cost quite a bit at least as much as the projector. If there is a reason to use one it would be for increased brightness on scope movies where you are trying to use a larger screen size and not getting to HDR lumen specs. Unless you need a massive screen a simpler solution would be to sit a couple feet closer to a smaller screen for the same immersion and greater brightness. Modern 4K projectors in a proper theater room can easily handle a screen large enough for 5-6 viewers in a single row all getting a similar immersion level without an A-lens.

When you do the above it opens up IMAX as an option or CIH+IMAX as a presentation method or something similar using that sized 16:9 screen.

Immersion is a little tricky as we all don’t like sitting in the same row when we go to a Commercial Theater. and we also have personal opinions on where to sit in an IMAX Theater.

There is also content and will everything you watch be coming from a perfectly mastered 4K UHD BD or will you be streaming and playing regular BD and other stuff.

Because you said you want higher immersion and I do like it also I will give you my specs as a starting point in terms of image height.

I like 2X screen height for CIH material call that scope movies and flat and 1.5X for IMAX movies. So I sized my 16:9 screen area for IMAX at 1.5X and everything else is going to be lessened in one or two directions. I have found for instance old Academy AR movies play better taller than CIH will allow, some sports also play better taller. TV shows like Game of Thrones play well IMAX or almost IMAX. Other Prestige TV shows (Streaming) are in new ARs like 2.0:1 and look good made wider and more CIH.

There is also a benefit to the black bar area for subtitles and the on screen controls.

Again IMO in today’s world media is coming at us where it changes AR many times during a TV show or in a movie and dealing with anything other than a screen with the same AR as the projector will be problematic. Unless all you will be watching is movies in 2.4 and 1.85 ARs.
DavidK442 likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #9 of 42 Old 03-21-2020, 08:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,775
Mentioned: 157 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4019 Post(s)
Liked: 3204
The most important thing to remember is that screen size/viewing distance is a personal preference. All of the various formulas you can find are simply generalities for the median preference. While you may personally fit that median you could also be well below or well above it. Think in terms of a commercial movie theater where some prefer to sit in the front row, some in the back row and some in every row in between. The optimum solution is to experiment with various image sizes on a blank wall from your planned viewing distance until you find your own personal sweet spot.
DavidK442 likes this.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #10 of 42 Old 03-21-2020, 09:38 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 Dave in Green View Post
The most important thing to remember is that screen size/viewing distance is a personal preference. All of the various formulas you can find are simply generalities for the median preference. While you may personally fit that median you could also be well below or well above it. Think in terms of a commercial movie theater where some prefer to sit in the front row, some in the back row and some in every row in between. The optimum solution is to experiment with various image sizes on a blank wall from your planned viewing distance until you find your own personal sweet spot.
This is great advice.

When you are experimenting with sizes you also need to experiment with different media. It is possible to find the least common denominator and be happy there. That is in fact what most people do. When you play with media though you might find watching a 4K UHD copy of a movie like Dunkirk that the IMAX parts were shot so perfectly with IMAX film and cameras that it can be enjoyable much more immersive than a similar scope movie shot 10 years ago on regular film and up processed to 4K media. If you settle on the lesser immersion Dunkirk will still look perfect only less immersive not true if you size yourself the other way around.

I watch many movies from the 50s-60s some streaming and some still from DVD. Even the streaming ones that claim 1080 resolution have a different mastering that is not as good and are not made better by being made more immersive even though I wish I could. For those reasons I use a method of variable immersion rather than limit my immersion based on the worst quality material I would watch.
Dave in Green likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #11 of 42 Old 03-21-2020, 06:15 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 27,878
Mentioned: 279 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13494 Post(s)
Liked: 11128
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Witchboard View Post
I eventually plan on upgrading to projection and I'm wanting to get the largest screen I can for my viewing distance. The plan is to upgrade to a 4K projector, but I'm not sure how I should calculate the screen size. From what I've read, with 4K, you should be sitting at 1.5x the vertical height of the screen, but all the online calculators go by diagonal size. I'm wanting to go with a 2.35:1 screen where I may be able to upgrade my projector with a anamorphic lens in the future to fill it out, but I don't want the 16:9 to be so small that it won't feel like a major upgrade from what I've got. Is the viewing distance for 4K projection different than 4K television?
1.5 times height is very close. At that ratio, I would be watching a 9'-2" wide scope screen from 5'-9". Watching a movie would be like front row mid court of a tennis match, as far as head movement goes.
rossandwendy likes this.
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #12 of 42 Old 03-21-2020, 06:18 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 27,878
Mentioned: 279 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13494 Post(s)
Liked: 11128
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by noob00224 View Post
The A lens would have to be removed when viewing 16:9 content.

There are many factors that contribute to how far away you should sit and screen diagonal:
projector technology
projector and/or aditional lenses
internal processing (of projector)
settings
calibration
tone mapping algorithm
source (hardware)
settings in hardware chain
contrast
quality of source material
resolution that the material was shot at
post processing
type of content (fast moving, static)
internal/texture resolution (for video games)
type of screen fabric
room environment
ambient light
dust
software and settings
visual acuity
seating distance
personal preference, or what the viewer is used to


It varies greatly.
A starting point is to project the image on the wall and see what looks best.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-di...ed-angles.html
Why would he need or want to remove the A-lens?
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #13 of 42 Old 03-21-2020, 09:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 2,535
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1385 Post(s)
Liked: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
Why would he need or want to remove the A-lens?
Doesn't the A lens stretch a 16:9 source to scope format?
noob00224 is online now  
post #14 of 42 Old 03-22-2020, 04:53 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 Mike Garrett View Post
1.5 times height is very close. At that ratio, I would be watching a 9'-2" wide scope screen from 5'-9". Watching a movie would be like front row mid court of a tennis match, as far as head movement goes.
I agree 1.5X is VERY immersive for CIH scope or flat but isn’t bad for IMAX. The only way I would go 1.5X screen height is if doing CIH+IMAX.

Surprisingly I don’t mind a lot of sports football, basketball even NASCAR at 1.75-2.0X and if he has a second row that could be a help for immersion there for the rest of the room. Quite a few people use their mixed media rooms for sports so you could have people in the back playing pool or in a third row bar area. “The good of the many outweigh the good of the few.”

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #15 of 42 Old 03-22-2020, 05:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markmon1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,450
Mentioned: 143 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6238 Post(s)
Liked: 4330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
1.5 times height is very close. At that ratio, I would be watching a 9'-2" wide scope screen from 5'-9". Watching a movie would be like front row mid court of a tennis match, as far as head movement goes.
Except it wouldn't be anything like that. You wouldn't be moving your head *at all*. As I'm 7 feet from a 120" wide screen, it could be an additional 6" wider on each side without me having to move my head. I think 1.5 x screen width is about where you really want to be if you want to fully benefit from 4K resolution. If I could sit another foot closer on my 120" wide screen without my head becoming a shadow in the picture, I would.

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 #16 of 42 Old 03-22-2020, 10:47 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 markmon1 View Post
Except it wouldn't be anything like that. You wouldn't be moving your head *at all*. As I'm 7 feet from a 120" wide screen, it could be an additional 6" wider on each side without me having to move my head. I think 1.5 x screen width is about where you really want to be if you want to fully benefit from 4K resolution. If I could sit another foot closer on my 120" wide screen without my head becoming a shadow in the picture, I would.
All the conversation so far has been about screen height as a function of seating distance not width.

It is more conventional to talk in terms of height in the CIH forum and the exception comes when talking IMAX that is the width of scope only taller. At least IMAX at home that seems to be the convention.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #17 of 42 Old 03-22-2020, 04:15 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Witchboard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by noob00224 View Post
Doesn't the A lens stretch a 16:9 source to scope format?

Yup. I found a couple of informative videos on YouTube about anamorphic lenses as well as how to handle movies with scope changes.


Anamorphic Projection -


Anamorphic and IMAX -


Thanks for the input everybody. I think I'd agree it would be best to make a mock frame and see how it looks, but at least I now know where to start.

Rumble & Frenzy - My Mini-Marty Build
Screaming Eagles - My Fusion-15 Sentinel Build
Witchboard is offline  
post #18 of 42 Old 03-22-2020, 06:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
rossandwendy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 906
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 298 Post(s)
Liked: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by markmon1 View Post
Except it wouldn't be anything like that. You wouldn't be moving your head *at all*. As I'm 7 feet from a 120" wide screen, it could be an additional 6" wider on each side without me having to move my head. I think 1.5 x screen width is about where you really want to be if you want to fully benefit from 4K resolution. If I could sit another foot closer on my 120" wide screen without my head becoming a shadow in the picture, I would.
7 feet from 120" wide screen? Wow that is 71.1 degrees, the largest viewing angle I've seen yet on the forum! I thought Art Sonneborn was immersive at 62 degrees. It's cool your particular eye/brain combo allows this, it amazes me. Over the years I have pushed myself to adapt to more and more immersion and I have hit my wall at about 53 degrees for scope material, try as I might I just can't stomach more.

Ross

__________________________________________________
DISPLAY: JVC RS540, 160" Stewart WallScreen ST130 G4
SPEAKERS/SUBS: Chane A5.4/A2.4/A1.4, Rythmik FV18 x 2
POWER: Outlaw 5000 5-channel, Denon AVR-X3300W
SOURCE: multi-region Oppo BDP-103D & BDP-83

Last edited by rossandwendy; 03-22-2020 at 06:38 PM.
rossandwendy is offline  
post #19 of 42 Old 03-23-2020, 07:18 AM
Member
 
timgrady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 56
In my last house, I was 7' 10" from a 130" wide 2.07 AR screen. It varied from 1.5:1 to 3:1 distance:screen height depending on whether front row or back row and 16:9 or 2.35:1. Horizontal viewing angles ranged from 37 to >69 degrees depending on row and content. IMO, this was the perfect amount of immersion in the front row. The rear row was a bit too far for me for most movies, but I liked it for TV and my wife and many guests liked it for movies. I preferred sitting at < 1.7 image height and having a > 60 degree horizontal viewing angle for most movies.

Tim
timgrady is offline  
post #20 of 42 Old 03-23-2020, 07:52 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
This second video posted above IMO is nonsense, and promoting an expensive A-lens method that defeats the concept of what IMAX is all about. That being expanding your horizontal immersion as wide as scope presentation would have it and then further expand your vertical immersion past what scope allows for. The movie he selected Aquaman is really a bad choice as the vast majority of that movie is IMAX framing and this method distorts all those parts of the movie.

The proper solution is to do what the director intended and use an IMAX sized 16:9 screen and display black bars when the movie switches to scope. If for some reason you have a scope screen then a better solution would be to get a projector that has a blanking feature for the so called “Safe scope area”.

The as intended size on an IMAX screen would show the full resolution and you are not changing resolution when you blank or over scan you are just losing image area.

One of the greatest benefits of 4k is it is a resolution that with normal seating distances benefits little from resolution gain with an A-lens. The biggest benefit of an A-lens and 4k is in brightness. There are good reasons someone might want an A-lens with 4k HDR scope media. I find the usage for IMAX media not one of them.

I will repost the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo
avsBuddy likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #21 of 42 Old 03-23-2020, 08:30 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Witchboard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 200
I don't plan on deforming the IMAX presentation. The video was just for reference on scope changing movies. That's why in my original post I was referencing the screen height. I'd mask the screen for 16:9 and IMAX movies and just deal with the bars when the scope changes on the latter. I've already been doing it for years.

Rumble & Frenzy - My Mini-Marty Build
Screaming Eagles - My Fusion-15 Sentinel Build
Witchboard is offline  
post #22 of 42 Old 03-23-2020, 08:38 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 rossandwendy View Post
7 feet from 120" wide screen? Wow that is 71.1 degrees, the largest viewing angle I've seen yet on the forum! I thought Art Sonneborn was immersive at 62 degrees. It's cool your particular eye/brain combo allows this, it amazes me. Over the years I have pushed myself to adapt to more and more immersion and I have hit my wall at about 53 degrees for scope material, try as I might I just can't stomach more.

Ross
I know we are all different and it kind of boils down to do you make a compromise for your least immersive viewer or do you as the theater owner make your family and guests adjust to your personal preference for immersion. If you are a middle of the theater guy the second method is fairly easy as people that like more immersion will not be overly put off by a little less and back row people wont be overwhelmed with sitting just a little close. The problem happens when the main view and owner loves super high immersion and then leaves no options for others.

I’m a confirmed believer in the single row solution and then using a variable (zoom) presentation to alter immersion as required, but @timgrady makes some excellent points on how to best utilize multi row seating with some “zoom” and in effect giving himself and his guests double the options during any given showing. His approach is another really great way to do it.

I think a lot of people think about immersion in a little bit the wrong way. I was just out in our kitchen watching TV on our built in 32” set from a distance of about 10’. It was ok and I could see the news and read the headlines and the sound was low but I knew what they were saying etc. It was just way far from being immersive and there was no reason it needed to be immersive. It was still a fine visual experience. On the same token I could watch an IMAX movie out there and enjoy it. It just wouldn’t be IMAX. The whole reason for IMAX is to challenge your FOV fully. Just the same way as I would engage my subs and have the sound level at theater levels to fully enjoy the movie. IMAX and Scope and even Flat movies get shown for TV viewers all the time 99.99% of all BDs get sold to people not intending to view them at theater levels. We that small group of people with projection rooms have the opportunity to see them like they would be seen in a commercial theater, and even IMAX theaters have more than one row and you can adjust your immersion a little, but every seat is The IMAX Experience.

To the OP I hope you see there was nothing stupid in your question even if we can’t give you a simple answer.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #23 of 42 Old 03-23-2020, 09:17 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 Witchboard View Post
I don't plan on deforming the IMAX presentation. The video was just for reference on scope changing movies. That's why in my original post I was referencing the screen height. I'd mask the screen for 16:9 and IMAX movies and just deal with the bars when the scope changes on the latter. I've already been doing it for years.
I did the same thing for a long time, many years. I have a stealth screen wall.

I got in the habit of asking guests and family members after an IMAX / Scope AR changer movie some questions. I always showed them where the IMAX immersion level was around 1.7 X SH. I probably asked several dozen people some of them more than once after different movies that switched AR even non IMAX movies like The Grand Budapest Hotel or The Life of Pi. I ask them was it annoying when the AR changed and was the lack of masking and the black bars not being masked annoying?

The answers were almost always the same. People would say what do you mean? I would then explain that the height and sometimes the width changed and in its place were dark gray bars. Not a single person noticed or let alone distracted from the movie because of it. I had one person insist it didn’t happen because he hates it when it does that at home and doesn’t fill his under immersive TV set. I had to play back a few spots to show him and then he said well who would be watching that the picture is so big ether size.

That’s what immersion does for us when it is right and a movie like Dunkirk when it goes IMAX expands on what is already tall enough to be fully satisfying and takes it to the next level of immersive satisfaction.

I never repeated the experiment watching say Dunkirk on a small TV at say 6X SH distance like many people view at, but my guess is it would be far more noticeable.

At that point I went totally stealth screen and now use no boarders for any presentations allowing for unlimited zooming and immersions. Without black velvet on any side to set that black level and a gray screen wall and a room with good light control I’m pretty happy.

I only mention this method as it is another option out there. For me the benefits of total immersion control outweighs the lack of masking. Many others strongly disagree.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #24 of 42 Old 03-23-2020, 09:55 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Witchboard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Sorry for my ignorance, but what are you referring to as a stealth screen? I thought those were retractable screens that go into the ceiling, but you're talking about a wall, so I'm sure that's not it.

Rumble & Frenzy - My Mini-Marty Build
Screaming Eagles - My Fusion-15 Sentinel Build
Witchboard is offline  
post #25 of 42 Old 03-23-2020, 10:40 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 Witchboard View Post
Sorry for my ignorance, but what are you referring to as a stealth screen? I thought those were retractable screens that go into the ceiling, but you're talking about a wall, so I'm sure that's not it.
Sorry for the confusion. Yes a stealth screen wall is a term used over in the DIY screen forum. it started out where someone wanted to hide the projector from view, use a concealed sound system and have a wall painted to look like an accent wall but the paint was formulated to screen properties needed. The first time I saw this was at a doctors home and he had a really nice downstairs living room with a good sounding audio playing that seemed to just fill the room. There was no clue there was anything video in the room. Sitting on the couch the lights dimmed and the 120” image just seemed to appear from nowhere, the sound came up the lights dimmed more to pitch black and you were in a movie theater.

In my room it is clearly a projection room. My projector rig is in view and the opposite wall my speakers are stacked and there is a big blank space that is the screen. It is much larger than my projectors widest zoom can reach and I pick my image size by what the media is in terms of AR and how large I want to watch that media at based on what it is. The largest size I can go is a little larger than I like for IMAX movies and the smallest is about the size of a good size flat panel TV around 65”. One of the widest movies I have shown was The Hateful Eight with its 2.76:1 AR the tallest was I think Dunkirk as it is IMAX and is one of the best examples of what can be done with IMAX equipment yet. We watch regular TV and old TV 1.33:1 and streaming TV 2.0:1, even some DVD from time to time. I also do still slide shows (digital) classic B&W movies in Academy AR 1.375:1.

So I change immersion a lot based around the type of media and also the quality of the media. Perry Mason looks great in my room or Twilight Zone but not as large Dunkirk. I scale them down.

It was driving me nuts with manual 4-way masking and I quickly got used to not having any.
Witchboard likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #26 of 42 Old 03-23-2020, 10:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,775
Mentioned: 157 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4019 Post(s)
Liked: 3204
Quote:
Originally Posted by rossandwendy View Post
7 feet from 120" wide screen? Wow that is 71.1 degrees, the largest viewing angle I've seen yet on the forum! I thought Art Sonneborn was immersive at 62 degrees. It's cool your particular eye/brain combo allows this, it amazes me. Over the years I have pushed myself to adapt to more and more immersion and I have hit my wall at about 53 degrees for scope material, try as I might I just can't stomach more.

Ross
Proving the point that screen size/viewing distance is a personal preference that varies greatly from person to person. That's why it's best for everyone to use their own eyes to make the judgment rather than relying on any industry formula or recommendation from someone else who may have entirely different personal preferences.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #27 of 42 Old 03-23-2020, 11:08 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 17,612
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7798 Post(s)
Liked: 9870
Quote:
Originally Posted by rossandwendy View Post
7 feet from 120" wide screen? Wow that is 71.1 degrees, the largest viewing angle I've seen yet on the forum! I thought Art Sonneborn was immersive at 62 degrees. It's cool your particular eye/brain combo allows this, it amazes me. Over the years I have pushed myself to adapt to more and more immersion and I have hit my wall at about 53 degrees for scope material, try as I might I just can't stomach more.

Ross
markmon only has 2 seats if I recall. If you had one row of 6 seats wide, being this close could really mess with your audio. Another thing to factor in.
Craig Peer is offline  
post #28 of 42 Old 03-23-2020, 08:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
rossandwendy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 906
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 298 Post(s)
Liked: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
Proving the point that screen size/viewing distance is a personal preference that varies greatly from person to person. That's why it's best for everyone to use their own eyes to make the judgment rather than relying on any industry formula or recommendation from someone else who may have entirely different personal preferences.
Absolutely true. To see the range of viewing angles from members of this forum who use projectors, 71 degrees all the way down to a mere 29 degrees (from a recent thread), really shows that there is no recommendation anyone can make to those who want one number to blindly go by - each must experiment and determine their own comfort zone.

Ross

__________________________________________________
DISPLAY: JVC RS540, 160" Stewart WallScreen ST130 G4
SPEAKERS/SUBS: Chane A5.4/A2.4/A1.4, Rythmik FV18 x 2
POWER: Outlaw 5000 5-channel, Denon AVR-X3300W
SOURCE: multi-region Oppo BDP-103D & BDP-83
rossandwendy is offline  
post #29 of 42 Old 03-23-2020, 09:17 PM
Member
 
Run&Gun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I know we are all different and it kind of boils down to do you make a compromise for your least immersive viewer or do you as the theater owner make your family and guests adjust to your personal preference for immersion.
Yep. If you bought it, it's your call. ; )

Right after I had my 120" screen installed, my GF said it's too big and complained about having to move her head/eyes around while we were watching football. I honestly don't think I had a response and just rolled my eyes. Which for some reason she never has to see to know I'm doing...
rossandwendy likes this.
Run&Gun is offline  
post #30 of 42 Old 03-24-2020, 11:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,775
Mentioned: 157 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4019 Post(s)
Liked: 3204
Quote:
Originally Posted by rossandwendy View Post
Absolutely true. To see the range of viewing angles from members of this forum who use projectors, 71 degrees all the way down to a mere 29 degrees (from a recent thread), really shows that there is no recommendation anyone can make to those who want one number to blindly go by - each must experiment and determine their own comfort zone.

Ross
That would make good numbers to quote in response to future questions about screen size and viewing distance -- that viewing angle preferences stated on this forum run from ~30 to ~70 degrees. That would graphically show just how high a variance in preference range there is and how unpredictable what anyone asking might prefer without them actually experimenting with their own eyes.
Dave in Green is offline  
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