Get a painters roll and do a mockup. Cut it to the measurement you're contemplating, position it where you will have the screen and position your chair accordingly. If you have to move your head to take in the sides, you may feel a smaller screen is a more comfortable view. I sit 9' 6" from a 92" cut to 2.35:1 and it's very immersive.
-
Get an exclusive sneak peek into our new project. >>> Click Here
-
Our native mobile app has a new name: Fora Communities. Learn more.
How big of a screen do I want at 10-12 feet?
How big of a screen do I want at 11.5 feet?
I have a BenQ 1070. I will be watching a lot of films in 2.35:1 which I was told if I got a 16:9 screen I could simply retract it a little bit to make it 2.35. I will be throwing at a distance of 11.75 feet to be exact.
I was told a 135" 16:9 screen rolled up to 2.35:1 would be about 125". Is that big enough? I feel like I would want it to be at least 130" at 11.5-12'. I want the most immersive experience possible. Thanks!
I have a BenQ 1070. I will be watching a lot of films in 2.35:1 which I was told if I got a 16:9 screen I could simply retract it a little bit to make it 2.35. I will be throwing at a distance of 11.75 feet to be exact.
I was told a 135" 16:9 screen rolled up to 2.35:1 would be about 125". Is that big enough? I feel like I would want it to be at least 130" at 11.5-12'. I want the most immersive experience possible. Thanks!
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
92"?? That's tiny. I was thinking at least 125" @ 12'.Get a painters roll and do a mockup. Cut it to the measurement you're contemplating, position it where you will have the screen and position your chair accordingly. If you have to move your head to take in the sides, you may feel a smaller screen is a more comfortable view. I sit 9' 6" from a 92" cut to 2.35:1 and it's very immersive.
that sounds more like it92"?? That's tiny. I was thinking at least 125" @ 12'.
We all have our preferences on seating distance. I want to be able to see the entire screen and not have to shift my eyes to see action on the sides.
Fair enough, that's a good point. Sorry I didn't mean to sound critical, I just hear everyone stress the importance of bigger and bigger.We all have our preferences on seating distance. I want to be able to see the entire screen and not have to shift my eyes to see action on the sides.
I'm currently building my theater. My eyes to screen will be 10' with a 10' wide 2.35 CIH AT screen. In my last house, eyes to screen was 9' with a 9' 5" wide 2.4 CIH AT screen that I thought was the perfect size for that distance.
A 92" screen viewed from 9' 6" is going to appear roughly as large as a 125" screen viewed from 12'. I watch my 100" 16:9 screen from 10' and consider it to be just right for me -- not too small to lack theater effect and not too big to strain my eyes from excessive movement. Everyone is wired a little differently so it's always best to experiment with viewing size on a wall before spending a lot of money on a screen that you may find is either bigger or smaller than your own personal optimum size.
Right now I'm viewing a 106" at 8.3'. What would the equivalent be at 11.75 feet?A 92" screen viewed from 9' 6" is going to appear roughly as large as a 125" screen viewed from 12'. I watch my 100" 16:9 screen from 10' and consider it to be just right for me -- not too small to lack theater effect and not too big to strain my eyes from excessive movement. Everyone is wired a little differently so it's always best to experiment with viewing size on a wall before spending a lot of money on a screen that you may find is either bigger or smaller than your own personal optimum size.
my seating position is at 10'. I'm leaning towards a 140" diagonal CH 2.35 screen.
I'm just trying to think of someone who built a setup and then regretted going with too big a screen.
(Walks off, thinking...)
Nope. I'm sure it happens but "we shoulda gone bigger" is much more common, especially when the personal preference is like yours, looking for an immersive experience. I have a 120" 16:9 setup at about 11 feet and love it.
(Walks off, thinking...)
Nope. I'm sure it happens but "we shoulda gone bigger" is much more common, especially when the personal preference is like yours, looking for an immersive experience. I have a 120" 16:9 setup at about 11 feet and love it.
I know someone with a 140" screen 10 ft back and when they saw another person's 150" screen, they went with the bigger size. At that distance 150 seems too big but when you watch 16x9 television or worse, 4x3 it doesn't seem that large. YMMV
The basic formula to achieve the same apparent image size is distance/distance = diagonal/diagonal. It's easier to calculate if everything is in a common measure, i.e. inches. A simple example would be that one is currently viewing a 100" diagonal screen from 100" away and wants to know what size screen they'd need to achieve the same relative image size from 150" away, so 150"/100" = x"/100" with x being the size of the unknown screen diagonal in inches. In this case x is obviously 150" (1.5 times 100").
We are all addicted to size. 99% of the population have sets 65" or smaller and and are quite happy.
13' from 106" and 9 feet from 80" and my family thinks I am nuts
13' from 106" and 9 feet from 80" and my family thinks I am nuts
Point out to them that a 2.35:1 movie on the 80" is not that big because of the black bars.We are all addicted to size. 99% of the population have sets 65" or smaller and and are quite happy.
13' from 106" and 9 feet from 80" and my family thinks I am nuts
Black bars? They want the picture stretched out and black bars gonePoint out to them that a 2.35:1 movie on the 80" is not that big because of the black bars.
Heathen
I have purchased a 11' wide, 2.35:1, and eyes will be 9 - 9 1/2 feet from screen. Cinemar thread posts 3104 - 3106, he says he would recommend larger than his 136" wide, and his eyes are just over 10'.The basic formula to achieve the same apparent image size is distance/distance = diagonal/diagonal. It's easier to calculate if everything is in a common measure, i.e. inches. A simple example would be that one is currently viewing a 100" diagonal screen from 100" away and wants to know what size screen they'd need to achieve the same relative image size from 150" away, so 150"/100" = x"/100" with x being the size of the unknown screen diagonal in inches. In this case x is obviously 150" (1.5 times 100").
Everyone is different though!
4' wider than my screen. I guess some people don't mind moving their head left and right. In a recent Star Trek movie there is a scene where the actors speak, each one on the opposite side of the screen.I have purchased a 11' wide, 2.35:1, and eyes will be 9 - 9 1/2 feet from screen. Cinemar thread posts 3104 - 3106, he says he would recommend larger than his 136" wide, and his eyes are just over 10'.
Everyone is different though!
I'd be going 120"-125" if I were you. Any bigger and your eyes would be working too hard, any smaller and you'll regret it.
Don't forget that if you get a CIH 2.35 screen, when you watch 16x9 tv, the image will be narrower. You may find the tv image to be too narrow. I watch a fair number of recorded shows so my tv to movie ratio is about 50:50. That's why I want at least a 140" Diagonal screen for my 10' back viewing distance. I'm worried that at that size, television viewing might be too small for my tastes.
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
AVS Forum
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
WilliamR
952 Replies
BASSAHOLIC
504 Replies
bass addict
397 Replies
Recommended Communities
