People that own home projectors, how big are your screens? - Page 3 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 77Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 187 Old 07-16-2017, 11:47 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Walnut, CA, USA
Posts: 4,069
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1496 Post(s)
Liked: 602
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
While I would have liked to go larger I ran into throw issues and speaker placement issues. If you like your screen lower rather than higher like I do then you need to be aware of how far apart your speakers will be once your screen is installed.
This is a good point and one nobody else has mentioned. If L&R speakers are at 60degrees from seating position the way most HT audio layout guides suggest, that would dictate a seating position of 1x, given that speaker drivers will be slightly wider apart than screen width. Of course, an AT screen lets you place speakers anywhere behind the screen you want, but a non-AT screen means sitting closer than 1x would mean sitting closer than optimal for audio.

My 122" 16:9 screen in about as large as comfortable from 10' seats, but that comfort limit is a height limit and I would like to go wider for 2.40 movies.
sage11x likes this.

*********************
Kirk Ellis
BenQ TK800 VuTec 122" Screen, Harmon Kardon AVR 247
Psycoustic Mark III L&R Towers, Boston Center, Energy Take 5 Surrounds
dreamer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 187 Old 07-17-2017, 12:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Walnut, CA, USA
Posts: 4,069
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1496 Post(s)
Liked: 602
Quote:
Originally Posted by inspector View Post
My seating is just like yours. Now that I am heavy into 3D, 12' from the screen just doesn't cut it. The builders used the distance viewing chart and came up with the 12' from the screen, which is correct. The pop outs need to be closer to you to get the real effect of being in a theater. The problem that I have is I have 5 seats, 3 in front, 2 in back on a 9" riser.


The front row is up against the riser, so moving the front row forward would leave a 2' space behind the front row and the riser and would look like crap.


My HT is 12' x 17' so a 110" is the largest I could go with the projection not showing on my Definitive towers.
If the screen can't go bigger and the seating can't move forward, just move the screen closer to the seating. Just be careful to verify your projector position and zoom lens range will still fill the screen from the shorter throw distance. Brackets to float the screen 2' out from the wall are not a big deal.

*********************
Kirk Ellis
BenQ TK800 VuTec 122" Screen, Harmon Kardon AVR 247
Psycoustic Mark III L&R Towers, Boston Center, Energy Take 5 Surrounds
dreamer is offline  
post #63 of 187 Old 07-17-2017, 05:20 AM
Member
 
Ryan1981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 56
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Acer K330 on the bedroom wall: 133". Picture quality is not very good but the size more than makes up for it Waiting for a decent price (in europe) on the PF1500 to upgrade.
Ryan1981 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #64 of 187 Old 07-17-2017, 05:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
RafaelSmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orlando Fl
Posts: 3,048
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 963 Post(s)
Liked: 651
Sony 40es. 135in 16x9. I could have gone 140 most likely, but would have been tight.

Seating is about 13 feet away.
RafaelSmith is offline  
post #65 of 187 Old 07-17-2017, 05:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jasonsong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 1,188
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Liked: 185
Depends on how far you sit from screen.
I sit about 11 ft from my 120 inch screen.

7.2: Yamaha RX-A830 | Klipsch Synergy F30 + C20 + Sub12x2 + Onkyo HTIB Surrounds | Epson HC2040 Silver Ticket 120 inch Grey Screen
5.1: Yamaha RX-V475 | Mirage Omni 550 Onkyo HTIB Center + Surrounds + 12 inch Sub | Samsung 55 inch Smart 3DTV
jasonsong is offline  
post #66 of 187 Old 07-17-2017, 03:46 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,471
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 801 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by joel dickman View Post
I almost always admire posts from Dave in Green. They are clear, well-informed, and helpful. Here I suspect that Dave has gotten the emphasis wrong. Yes, different people have different tastes / preferences regarding image size and quality. Each of us should suit ourselves. Even if that means going against the grain of received opinion or the suggestions of alleged experts. Personal experimentation is the right way to figure out what works best.

Having said that, when home theater people replace one screen with another, they usually (though not always) get something larger. Sometimes they do a lateral switch to an ambient light rejecting screen, an acoustically transparent one, higher gain, or the like. Preferences / needs can change over time too.

How often do you read about someone making the move to a SMALLER screen or television and being happy about the switch? I am sure that it does happen. My own unscientific impression from reading threads on this forum for years is that it only happens rarely. For most people, most of the time, bigger screens are better, assuming you have adequate room, lumens, and money. And a screen that is too large to fully illuminate can be made (visually) smaller with masks. Masks are easy to make yourself, cheap, and removable.

Making a screen that is too small larger? Not so easy or cheap.

Happy viewing,
Joel Dickman
I have downsized from using screens as large as 140" and have downsized all the way down to 103" screen. Love the smaller screen size with superior fidelity.

Blowing up a 720p or 1080p image to over 120 inches from a shallow seating distance under 15ft is not a good combination in my opinion.
LumensLover is offline  
post #67 of 187 Old 07-17-2017, 05:58 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,471
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 801 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Currently, we watch a 100" 16:9 from about 9 feet away. Projector is a BenQ HT2050. We'll be moving at the end of next month so I'll have to see how that fits in the new space.

While I would have liked to go larger I ran into throw issues and speaker placement issues. If you like your screen lower rather than higher like I do then you need to be aware of how far apart your speakers will be once your screen is installed. Overall I'm happy with the 100" size. It's big enough to be immersive and small enough to still look ridiculously sharp.
Yaay! We finally agree on something. I love having my screen at a lower spot between my speakers about 30" off the floor. Since I downsized to a 110" screen, my phantom center imaging is much better and I love having the center of the screen at eye level.
sage11x likes this.
LumensLover is offline  
post #68 of 187 Old 07-17-2017, 10:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Imageek2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 492
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 47
I project a 92" diagonal image and sit about 9' from the screen. That is the biggest I can go in the room with my LG PF1500 which works well with that projector.

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars.
Imageek2 is offline  
post #69 of 187 Old 07-17-2017, 11:06 PM
Advanced Member
 
Balbolito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 613
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 202 Post(s)
Liked: 370
113'' 1.4 gain

am 14.5 ft away from the screen.

Processor Marantz AV8805 Amps Crown DCI/N x2 CT8150 x1 Speakers JBL PRO M2 x3 708i x4 328c x6 Subs SVS SB16 x2 Screen SI 160 Slate AT 1.2 Projector Epson TW5600 Media Steiger Dynamics Ikon Cables&Chords Wireworld & Belden
Balbolito is offline  
post #70 of 187 Old 07-17-2017, 11:35 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,471
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 801 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbolito View Post
113'' 1.4 gain

am 14.5 ft away from the screen.
Perfect screen size vs. seating distance in my opinion.
Balbolito likes this.
LumensLover is offline  
post #71 of 187 Old 07-18-2017, 03:08 AM
Advanced Member
 
dovercat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 739
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by LumensLover View Post
I have downsized from using screens as large as 140" and have downsized all the way down to 103" screen. Love the smaller screen size with superior fidelity.

Blowing up a 720p or 1080p image to over 120 inches from a shallow seating distance under 15ft is not a good combination in my opinion.
Did you change your projector or screen gain as well otherwise you are comparing a larger dimmer image with a small image that is either 84.75% brighter or if the projector enables the trading of lumen output for contrast substantially higher contrast. Also did you retain the same viewer eye level angle to the centre of the image, otherwise you are comparing different eye level to image horizon line which can change perception of image depth.

A 140" diagonal 16:9 image is 58.14 square feet
A 103" diagonal 16:9 image is 31.47 square feet (for the same lumen output 84.75% higher foot Lambert image)

I don't think image resolution is the limiting factor. I think its display dependent pixel fill factor, sharpness, brightness and color uniformity, foot Lambert. And viewer preference.

The Kell factor of a fixed pixel display is typically 0.7-0.8 meaning 7 or 8 pixels of image are represented by 10 pixels of display. Because image details 1 pixel in size do not line up perfectly with a fixed pixel display's pixels, unless the image is computer generated for a fixed pixel display.

Average human eyesight.

Vermier acuity 1/10 minute of a degree, can tell the difference between a straight line and a slightly non-straight line. Still image of a black line on a white background.

Smallest detail acuity 1 minute of a degree, can notice a detail that small if you look for it. Black and white still image.

Image in focus / sharpness perception. Contrast sensitivity peaks at 3.3-7.5 minutes of a degree, details that size are more noticed and determine the perception of sharpness. (Color photography photos I think work out to use about 2.67 minutes of a degree of the viewers arc as in focus that is for contrast not absolute resolution)

To my eyes if the projector has high pixel sharpness and high pixel fill factor and is bright enough and has uniformity then its contrast sensitivity, image focus / sharpness perception that helps dictate minimum viewing distance as sitting closer makes the image softer.
bud16415 and Dave in Green like this.

Last edited by dovercat; 07-18-2017 at 07:22 AM.
dovercat is offline  
post #72 of 187 Old 07-18-2017, 03:38 AM
Senior Member
 
Nuieve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 47
165".

I had a 138" and it never gave me a proper "movie theater" feeling of immersion, it was kind of big, but in the end I often preferred to watch movies on a 46" TV because I could lie in a bed, that's how little the screen size mattered. 165" on the other hand does provide a proper MT experience and watching a movie in a bed is not even a consideration.

Would never own a screen smaller than 165. It's really pushing 1080p resolution, but now that 4kand proper lumens are here, the size of the screen should only be limited by ceiling height. If you need to break down a wall, do it. It's worth it. Anything less than 150 is a waste of a wall it hangs on.

Viewing distance was 11' for 138 and about 13' for 165.
Nuieve is offline  
post #73 of 187 Old 07-18-2017, 04:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1303 Post(s)
Liked: 1054
As others have said, screen size is almost irrelevant, it's seating distance and viewing angles that are important, all else being equal. Having a huge screen but being sat 4x the screen height back is going to be less immersive than a smaller screen when sat at say 3xSH.

Pixels on a 20ft wide screen when sat 20 feet back are going to look the same size as seen on a 10ft wide screen when sat 10 feet back, all else being equal.
gene4ht likes this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #74 of 187 Old 07-23-2017, 12:15 AM
Senior Member
 
Nuieve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
As others have said, screen size is almost irrelevant, it's seating distance and viewing angles that are important, all else being equal. Having a huge screen but being sat 4x the screen height back is going to be less immersive than a smaller screen when sat at say 3xSH.

Pixels on a 20ft wide screen when sat 20 feet back are going to look the same size as seen on a 10ft wide screen when sat 10 feet back, all else being equal.
True but only to some degree. Proportionally (relative screen height to distance ratio), larger screen will always look better. You can't fool your brain, it knows if the screen if small or big. No matter how close you sit to a small (under 150) screen, it will never feel truly immersive. Decent and better than TV, but it will never give you the same sensation a larger screen can give (150+).
rossandwendy likes this.
Nuieve is offline  
post #75 of 187 Old 07-23-2017, 06:22 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1303 Post(s)
Liked: 1054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuieve View Post
True but only to some degree. Proportionally (relative screen height to distance ratio), larger screen will always look better. You can't fool your brain, it knows if the screen if small or big. No matter how close you sit to a small (under 150) screen, it will never feel truly immersive. Decent and better than TV, but it will never give you the same sensation a larger screen can give (150+).
You're talking about scale, which is a different issue.

Immersion is derived from seating distance and viewing angles, and the likes of Dolby, SMPTE, THX CEDIA etc will tell you that. There are no references to screen sizes in those documents, only seating distances and viewing angles. White papers from people like Dolby will tell you it's the image size on the retina that is important. Way back in the 50s Fox determined that 3x screen height was the optimal seating distance with film (image quality vs immersion). As film quality improved that has changed (THX recommend 2.4xSH as their optimal for example, and I think that was from back in the 80s). Digital has improved that due to removing most of the quality issues that film presented.

Scale is usually only relevant when you have points of reference in the field of view that will allow your brain to determine the physical size of the screen, and unless you have a black velvet room that is pretty much always going to be the case, and physical screen size may then be important to you.

In a black velvet room with the lights on, you have points of reference to the screen size, such as the floor and distance to the screen from the seats and the room dimensions (and visiblity of your own limbs) etc which all help your brain determine distance and sizes etc, so you may feel you are close to the screen when in the front row. When the lights are off and all the references disappear, the element of size can be lost and the screen size becomes difficult to determine. Pixel size on the retina remians constant with seating distance ratios regardless of screen size.

I find that if I sit in the second row of my theatre (approx 2.8 to 2.9 x SH), it feels like I am a long way away from a much larger screen for example, just like in acommercial theatre, but the feeling of immersion is still there because I still have a decent viewing angle. My front row is 2xSH for scope and flat (CIH), and 1.5xSH for IMAX presentations.

Another example is when watching 3D in a commercial theatre - depending wher you sit and the presence of other people, when the glasses are on and the room is further dimmed from view, the screen size can sometimes feel smaller than it is. I've noticed that a few times when viewing in an almost empty theatre from around 2.4xSH. In those instances in some respects it doesn't look a lot different to my viewing experience at home, and yet the screen is maybe 40 feet wide or more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #76 of 187 Old 07-23-2017, 07:42 AM
Senior Member
 
jefny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 35
My screen, a Da-Lite HCCV (silver gray) with 1.1 gain, is 105" diagonal (about a 96" wide by 55" high) with 16:9 proportion. Main seating is about 12 feet away. My projector is the SONY 40ES. From this distance my eyes can cover the whole screen without having to move my head which is fine for me. Room size is 21' by 14' and it is pretty well light controlled though I keep a small light on (a fish tank) so we can see what we are doing. The ceiling and floor are dark.

I sometimes think of getting a newer and slightly larger screen though room height is a problem (7'). Sound is 7.2. Most everyone who experience my setup are usually blown away (at my age group, senior citizen) almost noone else has a home theater setup utilizing a projector.

jefny
jefny is offline  
post #77 of 187 Old 07-24-2017, 02:59 AM
Advanced Member
 
dovercat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 739
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
Scale is usually only relevant when you have points of reference in the field of view that will allow your brain to determine the physical size of the screen, and unless you have a black velvet room that is pretty much always going to be the case, and physical screen size may then be important to you.

In a black velvet room with the lights on, you have points of reference to the screen size, such as the floor and distance to the screen from the seats and the room dimensions (and visiblity of your own limbs) etc which all help your brain determine distance and sizes etc, so you may feel you are close to the screen when in the front row. When the lights are off and all the references disappear, the element of size can be lost and the screen size becomes difficult to determine. Pixel size on the retina rmians constant with seating distance ratios regardless of screen size.
Eyes provide reference as to true image size and shape flat image. Through eye focus distance and binocular disparity. The closer the screen the greater the strength of those cues. Cues that can be overcome with a good projected image. But the greater the viewing distance the less strong those cues are and the more dependent your brain is on visual cues in the image. Making it easier for a larger screen at a greater distance to be more immersive, the illusion of reality or really being there.
rossandwendy likes this.
dovercat is offline  
post #78 of 187 Old 07-24-2017, 05:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1303 Post(s)
Liked: 1054
Quote:
Originally Posted by dovercat View Post
Eyes provide reference as to true image size and shape flat image. Through eye focus distance and binocular disparity. The closer the screen the greater the strength of those cues. Cues that can be overcome with a good projected image.
If you're saying what I think you're saying, then that agrees with my experience of siting in the front row of my setup - with the lights on I have many visual cues and the screen surface itself feels close, but when the lights are off and an image is projected, it doesn't seem as physically close as it did before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dovercat View Post
But the greater the viewing distance the less strong those cues are and the more dependent your brain is on visual cues in the image. Making it easier for a larger screen at a greater distance to be more immersive, the illusion of reality or really being there.
When you say visual cues in the image, do you mean the movie image or something else?

Are you also saying a larger screen from a greater viewing distance ratio (say 3xSH) is more immersive than a smaller screen from a smaller VDR (say 2.4xSH), even though it occupies less area on the retina?

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #79 of 187 Old 07-24-2017, 06:47 AM
Senior Member
 
xxrb1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 215
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
You're talking about scale, which is a different issue.

Immersion is derived from seating distance and viewing angles, and the likes of Dolby, SMPTE, THX CEDIA etc will tell you that. There are no references to screen sizes in those documents, only seating distances and viewing angles. White papers from people like Dolby will tell you it's the image size on the retina that is important. Way back in the 50s Fox determined that 3x screen height was the optimal seating distance with film (image quality vs immersion). As film quality improved that has changed (THX recommend 2.4xSH as their optimal for example, and I think that was from back in the 80s). Digital has improved that due to removing most of the quality issues that film presented.

Scale is usually only relevant when you have points of reference in the field of view that will allow your brain to determine the physical size of the screen, and unless you have a black velvet room that is pretty much always going to be the case, and physical screen size may then be important to you.

In a black velvet room with the lights on, you have points of reference to the screen size, such as the floor and distance to the screen from the seats and the room dimensions (and visiblity of your own limbs) etc which all help your brain determine distance and sizes etc, so you may feel you are close to the screen when in the front row. When the lights are off and all the references disappear, the element of size can be lost and the screen size becomes difficult to determine. Pixel size on the retina remians constant with seating distance ratios regardless of screen size.

I find that if I sit in the second row of my theatre (approx 2.8 to 2.9 x SH), it feels like I am a long way away from a much larger screen for example, just like in acommercial theatre, but the feeling of immersion is still there because I still have a decent viewing angle. My front row is 2xSH for scope and flat (CIH), and 1.5xSH for IMAX presentations.

Another example is when watching 3D in a commercial theatre - depending wher you sit and the presence of other people, when the glasses are on and the room is further dimmed from view, the screen size can sometimes feel smaller than it is. I've noticed that a few times when viewing in an almost empty theatre from around 2.4xSH. In those instances in some respects it doesn't look a lot different to my viewing experience at home, and yet the screen is maybe 40 feet wide or more.
Be careful of marketing documents that do not reference screen size. The reason might not be technical as you argue but marketing. Imaging if THX, CEDIA and all others industry players argue that you need at least 160 diag screen to have a full immersion experience, they will shrink their addressable market by 100 or 1000 as, I guess, few people can put such a screen in their rooms. My 2 cts. Read my words correctly, I am not arguing that they are mostly wrong, I am arguing that if size matter, they will never write it as it is damageable to their business.
xxrb1 is offline  
post #80 of 187 Old 07-24-2017, 06:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,906
Mentioned: 117 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2171 Post(s)
Liked: 1097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
You're talking about scale, which is a different issue.

Immersion is derived from seating distance and viewing angles, and the likes of Dolby, SMPTE, THX CEDIA etc will tell you that. There are no references to screen sizes in those documents, only seating distances and viewing angles. White papers from people like Dolby will tell you it's the image size on the retina that is important. Way back in the 50s Fox determined that 3x screen height was the optimal seating distance with film (image quality vs immersion). As film quality improved that has changed (THX recommend 2.4xSH as their optimal for example, and I think that was from back in the 80s). Digital has improved that due to removing most of the quality issues that film presented.

Scale is usually only relevant when you have points of reference in the field of view that will allow your brain to determine the physical size of the screen, and unless you have a black velvet room that is pretty much always going to be the case, and physical screen size may then be important to you.

In a black velvet room with the lights on, you have points of reference to the screen size, such as the floor and distance to the screen from the seats and the room dimensions (and visiblity of your own limbs) etc which all help your brain determine distance and sizes etc, so you may feel you are close to the screen when in the front row. When the lights are off and all the references disappear, the element of size can be lost and the screen size becomes difficult to determine. Pixel size on the retina remians constant with seating distance ratios regardless of screen size.

I find that if I sit in the second row of my theatre (approx 2.8 to 2.9 x SH), it feels like I am a long way away from a much larger screen for example, just like in acommercial theatre, but the feeling of immersion is still there because I still have a decent viewing angle. My front row is 2xSH for scope and flat (CIH), and 1.5xSH for IMAX presentations.

Another example is when watching 3D in a commercial theatre - depending wher you sit and the presence of other people, when the glasses are on and the room is further dimmed from view, the screen size can sometimes feel smaller than it is. I've noticed that a few times when viewing in an almost empty theatre from around 2.4xSH. In those instances in some respects it doesn't look a lot different to my viewing experience at home, and yet the screen is maybe 40 feet wide or more.
Think of it this way and I started a thread on this subject the other day in the under 3000 forum.

Your eyes are 3 inches apart roughly and say you have two screens one 90” wide and another 180” wide. You are viewing the same image simultaneously with both eyes and just like to ears the image is slightly difference and in that difference we perceive location and size. And the brain converts that size information into a feeling of immersion differently even given exactly the same proportional seating distance to both screens.

Unless you can change the distance between your eyes you will have this effect IMO.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #81 of 187 Old 07-24-2017, 08:08 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,906
Mentioned: 117 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2171 Post(s)
Liked: 1097
I read all the time in IMAX reviews of the new theaters people saying they pay a premium ticket price and walk into the IMAX showing room expecting an 80’ high screen and take a look and it is only 40’ high. They don’t consider the seating is twice as close and from IMAX’s new theory per their CEO we are no longer selling the huge screen experience we are selling the IMAX experience. All the viewer sees is a screen the same height as the other theater that was 10 bucks cheaper.

That is the perception of relative size part of it and with that firmly fixed in his mind he takes his seat and further verifies his suspicion of too small for an IMAX experience based on the feedback of stereo vision.

The thing I wonder about as I have a set of those VR goggles I put my iPhone 7 into and they have a stereo vision display and resolution aside they can trick the brain into immersion. I am thinking they are taking two different vantage points similar to what our eye spacing would be in relation to the image they are projecting in stereo so there is 3D and there is also scale of immersion, even though my screen size is about 2” for each eye. I don’t think that can be accomplished without glasses and some kind of stereo vision setup. Viewmaster was doing it very well 75 years ago. So no matter how much black and how much light control a 100” screen can’t be a 200” screen.

I have been comparing the testing and spec issuing bodies for commercial theater and applying those same standards to home theater for the last few years and trying to evaluate what is the best way to handle presentation in a small to medium HT. I’m not so sure everything applies across the board.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #82 of 187 Old 07-24-2017, 08:31 AM
Senior Member
 
William L Carman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oceanside, California (San Diego County)
Posts: 481
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 48
I have a very small one man home theater in the second bedroom of our mobile home. The room is only ten foot by eleven foot. I have my Epson 5030 projector on a rack right behind my sitting position and am projecting an eighty two inch wide 2.4:1 image on a cut down screen made from a 16:9 screen I had on hand. I use the projector only for wide screen films, and use a forty nine inch Sony 4K set for standard aspect ratio films. This combo works pretty well for me.
William L Carman is offline  
post #83 of 187 Old 07-24-2017, 11:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,547
Mentioned: 154 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3905 Post(s)
Liked: 3078
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
... Your eyes are 3 inches apart roughly and say you have two screens one 90” wide and another 180” wide. You are viewing the same image simultaneously with both eyes and just like to ears the image is slightly difference and in that difference we perceive location and size. And the brain converts that size information into a feeling of immersion differently even given exactly the same proportional seating distance to both screens.

Unless you can change the distance between your eyes you will have this effect IMO.
Our brain primarily processes 3D cues to perceive distance and size. With a 2D front projection image in a totally black environment there are no 3D cues. If our eyes are 3" apart viewing a 100" image from 10' or a 200" image from 20' the angle of vision is identical.

But we don't walk into theaters blind-folded. We perceive the environment and our brains factor that into the movie experience before the lights go out. And even with lights out the theater is partially lit and we see 3D cues all around that reinforce the size of the theater and screen and our distance from it.

Our brains can be tricked. For example, 3D movies are processed in a way that tricks our brains into perceiving that some objects on the screen are much closer to us. But it's hard to trick our brains when viewing a 100" screen from 10' in our own home that it's the same as a 200" image from 20'. If we bought a 100" screen and put it up in a room we know to be 10'x12' it's always going to be a 100" screen to us unless we have the ability to suspend reality and convince ourselves that we're in a different world. Come to think of it, isn't that what movies are supposed to do?
Dave in Green is offline  
post #84 of 187 Old 07-24-2017, 12:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,862
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 571 Post(s)
Liked: 424
150" @ 15' for the first row of four. The elevated island rotates so the couches face the screen at about 25 feet. Used an acoustically transparent screen and 1 ton baffle wall to properly place the LCR.

Wouldn't change a thing.

James
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Baflle wall complete.jpg
Views:	152
Size:	215.5 KB
ID:	2256273   Click image for larger version

Name:	JIMBO'S DUGOUT FULL VIEW.jpg
Views:	171
Size:	168.3 KB
ID:	2256281  
Jets69 and steve1106 like this.

My Parlor and Theatre: "Jimbo's Dugout" : https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-gen...re-parlor.html

Actual phone call (see pic to left):
 Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"
Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."
mastermaybe is offline  
post #85 of 187 Old 07-24-2017, 12:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,906
Mentioned: 117 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2171 Post(s)
Liked: 1097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
Our brain primarily processes 3D cues to perceive distance and size. With a 2D front projection image in a totally black environment there are no 3D cues. If our eyes are 3" apart viewing a 100" image from 10' or a 200" image from 20' the angle of vision is identical.

But we don't walk into theaters blind-folded. We perceive the environment and our brains factor that into the movie experience before the lights go out. And even with lights out the theater is partially lit and we see 3D cues all around that reinforce the size of the theater and screen and our distance from it.

Our brains can be tricked. For example, 3D movies are processed in a way that tricks our brains into perceiving that some objects on the screen are much closer to us. But it's hard to trick our brains when viewing a 100" screen from 10' in our own home that it's the same as a 200" image from 20'. If we bought a 100" screen and put it up in a room we know to be 10'x12' it's always going to be a 100" screen to us unless we have the ability to suspend reality and convince ourselves that we're in a different world. Come to think of it, isn't that what movies are supposed to do?

I wont do the trig, but if our eyes are 3”apart there is a different 3D cue for the edges of the screen from each eye and the center as they are at different distances. We know the two angles are different and we know our eye is focusing so many inches away, that’s depth perception. When we drive our car we know the distance to the car ahead if it is a big car or a little car. There is all the visual reference you need to determine screen size just within the screen with two eyes I think.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #86 of 187 Old 07-24-2017, 01:49 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,547
Mentioned: 154 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3905 Post(s)
Liked: 3078
The 3D cues for the screen alone in a sea of blackness would not change if the screen were twice as big and twice as far away since the distance from the edge of the screen to the center would appear the same for each eye. Also, as distance increases the brain relies more on context clues to determine spatial relationship.

If we can tell what model of car is immediately ahead of us and we know which models are big and which are small then we know how big the car is and could slightly fine-tune our estimate of its distance. But with increasing distance to the car in front of us we increasingly rely on context clues. If we suddenly came upon a kid's small toy car sitting in the middle of the street context clues would immediately tell us we weren't about to run into a real car.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #87 of 187 Old 07-24-2017, 02:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1303 Post(s)
Liked: 1054
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxrb1 View Post
Be careful of marketing documents that do not reference screen size. The reason might not be technical as you argue but marketing. Imaging if THX, CEDIA and all others industry players argue that you need at least 160 diag screen to have a full immersion experience, they will shrink their addressable market by 100 or 1000 as, I guess, few people can put such a screen in their rooms. My 2 cts. Read my words correctly, I am not arguing that they are mostly wrong, I am arguing that if size matter, they will never write it as it is damageable to their business.
What marketing docs? The docs I refer to are white papers: THXs recommendations go all the way down to TVs - they may describe the requirents differently when referring to TV (see THX.com), but the range is exactly the same - 2.4 to 3.68 x SH (optimal to back row recommendations). If you ask THX directly, they will tell you that a 40 degree viewing angle for 16:9, and 52 for scope when viewed from the same seat (i.e Constant Image Height) is their optimal recomendation, both for home and commercial. Thats 2.4xSH btw.

Do you have a link to a white paper that says 160" diagonal is the starting point for immersion? It sounds to me more like invention for someone who has a large screen at home to trying to make out it is somehow better than those with a smaller screen. And don't get me started on 16:9 screens for critical movie watching

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #88 of 187 Old 07-24-2017, 03:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Legairre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,793
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1267 Post(s)
Liked: 708
Mine is a 120" screen and eyes to screen is 13'. I always measure eyes to screen not the front of the seating so when you guys say seating is x feet from the screen are you measuring from the front of the seating or your eyes to the screen?



Legairre

"What do you mean it's too loud? My ears aren't even bleeding yet!"
Dedicated ARC Genesis Thread
Legairre is offline  
post #89 of 187 Old 07-24-2017, 04:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,906
Mentioned: 117 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2171 Post(s)
Liked: 1097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
The 3D cues for the screen alone in a sea of blackness would not change if the screen were twice as big and twice as far away since the distance from the edge of the screen to the center would appear the same for each eye. Also, as distance increases the brain relies more on context clues to determine spatial relationship.

If we can tell what model of car is immediately ahead of us and we know which models are big and which are small then we know how big the car is and could slightly fine-tune our estimate of its distance. But with increasing distance to the car in front of us we increasingly rely on context clues. If we suddenly came upon a kid's small toy car sitting in the middle of the street context clues would immediately tell us we weren't about to run into a real car.
Then you can have the IMAX experience with a 40” flat screen TV sitting about 36” from the screen. IMAX could save a lot of money just make a room with 400 comfy chairs and each one have a 40” UHD monitor and every seat in the theater would be the perfect center seat. They could even leave the lights on I guess.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #90 of 187 Old 07-24-2017, 04:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,906
Mentioned: 117 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2171 Post(s)
Liked: 1097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legairre View Post
Mine is a 120" screen and eyes to screen is 13'. I always measure eyes to screen not the front of the seating so when you guys say seating is x feet from the screen are you measuring from the front of the seating or your eyes to the screen?



Legairre
Eyes to screen is what I measure.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP

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