AVS Forum banner

What's your prime seating's field of view?

  • Native Scope/CIH Screen (2.3x:1) - FOV less than 36deg = prime row more than 3.68xH

    Votes: 1 1.0%
  • Native Scope/CIH Screen (2.3x:1) - FOV 36-43deg = prime row between 3.68xH and 3.00xH

    Votes: 5 5.2%
  • Native Scope/CIH Screen (2.3x:1) - FOV 44-53deg = prime row between 2.99xH and 2.39xH

    Votes: 17 17.5%
  • Native Scope/CIH Screen (2.3x:1) - FOV 54-62deg = prime row between 2.38xH and 2.00xH

    Votes: 7 7.2%
  • Native Scope/CIH Screen (2.3x:1) - FOV greater than 62deg = prime row less than 2.00xH

    Votes: 2 2.1%
  • Native HDTV/CIW Screen (16:9) - FOV less than 36deg = prime row more than 1.54xW

    Votes: 9 9.3%
  • Native HDTV/CIW Screen (16:9) - FOV 36-43deg = prime row between 1.54xW and 1.26xW

    Votes: 19 19.6%
  • Native HDTV/CIW Screen (16:9) - FOV 44-53deg = prime row between 1.25xW and 1.00xW

    Votes: 30 30.9%
  • Native HDTV/CIW Screen (16:9) - FOV 54-62deg = prime row between 0.99xW and 0.84xW

    Votes: 3 3.1%
  • Native HDTV/CIW Screen (16:9) - FOV greater than 62deg = prime row less than 0.84xW

    Votes: 4 4.1%
61 - 80 of 114 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,087 Posts
My bad was useing old measure tape with missing front section
Quick trip to hardware store and new measure tape says 421 cms?
Got soda remeasured and tape says 422 cms from projector screen to projector lens ?
Once my kids get here i will have them measure with new tape
That was fast -- just 36 minutes from the time I posted to you checking the old tape measure, going to the hardware store for a new tape measure, re-measuring twice and posting new data. :eek:

Now, back to the other measurements. You said the bottom of the screen is 25.75" from the floor so let's round that to 26". Sitting in a typical chair the top of a typical person's head is >40" off the floor. So your head would be overlapping the screen by at least 14". Your projector lens is 422 cm (166" or 13' 10") from the screen and your heads are 3' from the screen and overlapping by at least 14". It's not clear from those measurements how your head would not be in the light path. But a simple photo will help explain that. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
920 Posts
That was fast -- just 36 minutes from the time I posted to you checking the old tape measure, going to the hardware store for a new tape measure, re-measuring twice and posting new data. :eek:

Now, back to the other measurements. You said the bottom of the screen is 25.75" from the floor so let's round that to 26". Sitting in a typical chair the top of a typical person's head is >40" off the floor. So your head would be overlapping the screen by at least 14". Your projector lens is 422 cm (166" or 13' 10") from the screen and your heads are 3' from the screen and overlapping by at least 14". It's not clear from those measurements how your head would not be in the light path. But a simple photo will help explain that. :)

pictures.
 

Attachments

·
Super Moderator
JVC RS4500 | ST130 G4 135" | MRX 720 | MC303 MC152 | 6.1.4: B&W 802D3, 805D3, 702S2 | 4x15 IB Subs
Joined
·
10,887 Posts
16 9 135 inch diagonalMy body height 5 feet six inches
Sitting distance is feet touching wall under projector screen
So theater chair is 3 feet? Four feet? From projector screen ?


Viewing angle 117 degrees says calculator .


I like sitting at this distance and do not care what recommended distance says.
Do you run native 4K? At that distance, 1080p won't look that great. At least you will get full benefit from native 4K.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Russell Burrows

·
Registered
Joined
·
920 Posts
Do you run native 4K? At that distance, 1080p won't look that great. At least you will get full benefit from native 4K.
My projector is only capable of 1080p but looks good but just waiting till spring to get a 4k projector
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,883 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,163 Posts
Russell I’m still not following where the PJ is. Behind the screen? There’s no way that works with a normal PJ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
His head and feet are just at the bottom of the screen sitting reclined is my guess. His vision really upwards. About like sitting in the front row of IMAX.

Most of us want to maintain a distance where we don’t see pixels. In 480p days that meant even extending your seating distance for some. Some people do not mind seeing pixels. Lots of movies even use it as a background effect.

I agree Russell is sitting in the top one percent of people in immersion. I cant think of many movies I would like that close but I have seen some flight simulators where I could see doing it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,092 Posts
His head and feet are just at the bottom of the screen sitting reclined is my guess. His vision really upwards. About like sitting in the front row of IMAX.



Most of us want to maintain a distance where we don’t see pixels. In 480p days that meant even extending your seating distance for some. Some people do not mind seeing pixels. Lots of movies even use it as a background effect.



I agree Russell is sitting in the top one percent of people in immersion. I cant think of many movies I would like that close but I have seen some flight simulators where I could see doing it.


I’m still struggling with how your not blocking the pj light almost all the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
915 Posts
Discussion Starter · #69 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,087 Posts
@Russell Burrows, thanks for taking the time to post the images. Unfortunately they don't show the whole "picture" of your family sitting with their eyes just 3' from the 135" screen with an image on the screen. If you can manage that at your convenience it will answer everyone's questions about how this might work. Even a picture of the seating and screen together with no one sitting in the chairs would be helpful. Another even easier piece of info that would be helpful would be to take your new tape measure and measure the actual distance of your eyes to the screen when seated to confirm your original estimate of 3'. It's not that viewing a 135" screen from 3' is impossible to believe, it's just so unusual that you've sparked a lot of curiosity about what the seating arrangement might look like to avoid blocking the projector's light path. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,163 Posts
@Russell Burrows, thanks for taking the time to post the images. Unfortunately they don't show the whole "picture" of your family sitting with their eyes just 3' from the 135" screen with an image on the screen. If you can manage that at your convenience it will answer everyone's questions about how this might work. Even a picture of the seating and screen together with no one sitting in the chairs would be helpful. Another even easier piece of info that would be helpful would be to take your new tape measure and measure the actual distance of your eyes to the screen when seated to confirm your original estimate of 3'. It's not that viewing a 135" screen from 3' is impossible to believe, it's just so unusual that you've sparked a lot of curiosity about what the seating arrangement might look like to avoid blocking the projector's light path. :)

Some people like super immersion and don't mind shadows on the screen. :D
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
915 Posts
Discussion Starter · #73 ·
Thanks ! Each row is about 6'6" back from the row in front of it.

Art
Art, your FOV choices *for all three rows* are brilliant feathers in your meticulous attention to detail cap!

front row = 70deg (IMAX mid-point and arguable sweet spot)

middle row = 48deg (popular scope sweet spot)

back row = 36deg (THX minimum, still a sweet spot for many old schoolers!)


Also noted is the curved seating to help ensure the absolute best views for all seats in the house! Most impressive and inspiring! You are Emperor of the Sweet Spots! #EmperorSweetSpot
 
  • Like
Reactions: rossandwendy

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,163 Posts
Truly awesome theater! Is that your front row? What distances are the other two rows?
As @Art Sonneborn has one of the finest CIH theaters on the forum and one many of us would aspire to have I ran thru his numbers with the information he has provided as an example of what multi row seating at home would compare to commercial theater seating in terms of immersion. Art has just about as large of a screen as any at home measuring 17.3’ diagonal or 109 sq ft. Where my scope image size 104” diagonal is 27 sq ft or roughly one quarter the screen area. We share somewhat similar levels of immersion though between my one row and his front row with different seating distances.

Art’s screen would be 82x192 scope (208”) and 82x151 flat (172”) with his rows viewing distances 136, 214, 292.

Using the method of immersion I like as a ratio of screen height to seating distance you get 1.66SH, 2.61SH, 3.56SH.

Converting to angles based around scope width of Art’s theater. 70.5, 48.5, 36.4 degrees.

Art’s front row as he stated is similar to mid row in IMAX or the front 1/3 in a conventional theater, quite immersive. His middle row would be like the back 1/3 at IMAX and the middle of a conventional theater. His back row would likely be not IMAX immersion at all and the back 1/3 of a conventional theater.

IMO and no news to Art his theater seating is beautifully spaced and about as good as could be done, and perfect for showing 15 people a movie.

Now if I were to work thru the same method for my screen size or even a little larger say 120” for not 3 rows but only 2 rows the results would be much different given the same comfortable 6’ between rows in terms of immersion. One solution I used in my first theater that worked was to make the front row the money seats and the second row more upright conventional theater seats allowing the distance between rows to be compressed to about 3’. The second row was thought of as overflow seating actually. I had 4 seats in the first row and that covered 95% of the need. With say 5 seats in the second row upright and not as wide would more than cover the other 5% need.

With the new house I had even less floor space and knew we would never exceed 5 people in a showing running the theater long wise we could have done first row 3 and second row 3 and would have to limit the screen size way down or go AT and that would have cut into the length of the room. Then there is the problem when you have 2 couples who gets left out of the party and sits a row back. With a desire for something like “true” IMAX as the new up coming max screen size format and not feeling like building a tall riser in a small room one row seemed more logical. With the potential now for IMAX immersion it seemed to make some content for some people overly immersive. That is solved with varying image size with zoom.

The point is the larger the screen the more options you have. Many people see these fairly large home theaters and desire the same only scaling it down. It works depending on how important immersion is to you. 99% of the homes have TVs now 50-60” and seating distance is 10-12’ and they are happy enough, so immersion isn’t everything. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,163 Posts
Art, your FOV choices *for all three rows* are brilliant feathers in your meticulous attention to detail cap!

front row = 70deg (IMAX mid-point and arguable sweet spot)

middle row = 48deg (popular scope sweet spot)

back row = 36deg (THX minimum, still a sweet spot for many old schoolers!)


Also noted is the curved seating to help ensure the absolute best views for all seats in the house! Most impressive and inspiring! You are Emperor of the Sweet Spots! #EmperorSweetSpot
You did your math a little faster than me.

What you highlighted 70deg, 48deg, 36deg having 3 rows to pick from is about the same options I use only with a single row. With zoom you can create virtual rows. What I loose is the capacity for seating 15 people. What I gain with ¼ the screen area is 4 times the brightness. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
920 Posts
smooth floor no risers, no pits no hidden lifts just screen pj and seats and these are normal seats purchased from walmart for normal sized adults.


k pictures.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,087 Posts
@Russell Burrows, many thanks for taking the time to post all those images. Image 12 of 17 really tells the story. It looks as if your angle of recline would just keep your head from getting in the projector's light path. It also looks as if your eyes may be closer to 4' from the screen than 3'. But 4' from a 135" screen is still about as close as anyone on this forum has ever mentioned. I could never enjoy sitting that close to a 1080p image of that size because I would be totally distracted by seeing pixels. And if I forced my wife to sit that close to a 135" screen she would report me to the police for abuse. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,163 Posts
@Russell Burrows, many thanks for taking the time to post all those images. Image 12 of 17 really tells the story. It looks as if your angle of recline would just keep your head from getting in the projector's light path. It also looks as if your eyes may be closer to 4' from the screen than 3'. But 4' from a 135" screen is still about as close as anyone on this forum has ever mentioned. I could never enjoy sitting that close to a 1080p image of that size because I would be totally distracted by seeing pixels. And if I forced my wife to sit that close to a 135" screen she would report me to the police for abuse. :D
He’s only 3-4’ from the bottom of the screen, he’s a much more comfortable 7-8’ from the top. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
915 Posts
Discussion Starter · #79 ·
Interesting poll observation: I would've guessed Native Scope/CIH Screen (2.3x:1) - FOV 54-62deg = prime row between 2.38xH and 2.00xH to be more popular. An example in this range would be a 57deg scope FOV which includes a built-in 44deg HDTV FOV. A sweet 2-for-1 FOV!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,163 Posts
Interesting poll observation: I would've guessed Native Scope/CIH Screen (2.3x:1) - FOV 54-62deg = prime row between 2.38xH and 2.00xH to be more popular. An example in this range would be a 57deg scope FOV which includes a built-in 44deg HDTV FOV. A sweet 2-for-1 FOV!
Your poll doesn’t really have a category range for 16:9 screen to be used as IMAX. When I voted I used the 16:9 selections because that is what my projector is and what my largest most immersive size would be in IMAX not flat.

Your assumption I think is correct that the very popular immersion levels for CIH would be between 2.00xH and 2.5xH. Even people that say they don’t care for in your face immersion are ok with 2.5xH. Once you go below 2.0xH you start getting into IMAX1.89 like immersions. Keep in mind directors slow things down for all in IMAX1.43 to be played in real IMAX1.43 theaters. Slower more deliberate pans.

Art’s theater we looked at yesterday, he was talking in a different thread how he likes his front row best most of the time but when it comes to movies with lots of hand held camera work and fast action and rapid pans, he then watches from his second row and likes the immersion better.

I find the same thing true and adjust accordingly. A good director that wants a IMAX or even IMAX1.89 presentation will be aware of that and film it thinking about how it will be viewed. :)
 
61 - 80 of 114 Posts
Top