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.
-
Get an exclusive sneak peek into our new project. >>> Click Here
-
Our native mobile app has a new name: Fora Communities. Learn more.
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Here are the answers I got when I asked the same question a couple years ago.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-d...95705-110a-screen-10a-vs-220a-screen-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.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-d...95705-110a-screen-10a-vs-220a-screen-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.
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.
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.
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.wordpress.com/2012/01/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."
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.wordpress.com/2012/01/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."
Attachments
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...
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...
@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.
@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.
[
@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.
@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.
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.[
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.
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 !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.
If I were Chris Seymour I would have at least 10 screens in a row.Chris Seymour ( Seymour Screens ) out did me by having 3 screens !
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.
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.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...
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
