Joined
·
3,061 Posts
Just a simple poll:
Is the ISF Recommended Luminance of 12 foot-lamberts Bright Enough for Your Tastes?
Is the ISF Recommended Luminance of 12 foot-lamberts Bright Enough for Your Tastes?
Is the Traditional Recommended Luminance of 12 foot-lamberts Bright Enough for You?
-
LIVE: AVSForum Tech Talk Podcast with Scott Wilkinson, Episode 5 Click here for details.
-
Enter to be our Home Theater of the Month Click here for details.
1 - 20 of 519 Posts
nope nowhere close.
I dont even wake up unless its over 20... and prefer 30+
I like this because of a couple things
1. you can actually see the image
2. I have a very big theater room. Like volume of audio if you put xx decibels that sound good in a small room into a big room you likely will yawn. You have to push the volume up to engross the soundstage. Same with light. 12 ftlamberts in a small room may be fine. My theater room is 1200+ square feet with 14' ceilings. The light has to be brighter to not feel wimpy.
I dont even wake up unless its over 20... and prefer 30+
I like this because of a couple things
1. you can actually see the image
2. I have a very big theater room. Like volume of audio if you put xx decibels that sound good in a small room into a big room you likely will yawn. You have to push the volume up to engross the soundstage. Same with light. 12 ftlamberts in a small room may be fine. My theater room is 1200+ square feet with 14' ceilings. The light has to be brighter to not feel wimpy.
Joined
·
3,061 Posts
For those who need a bit of science to study before voting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-lambert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-lambert
Most people have no clue what footlamberts they are at. Unless you have a light meter and regularly measure. Your guesses will likely be no where near the truth.
Even knowing your manufacturers lumen specs and what screen you have is a pretty poor indicator.
Even knowing your manufacturers lumen specs and what screen you have is a pretty poor indicator.
Joined
·
3,061 Posts
This is a high-end forum so there are exceptions. However if you don't know then use a typical movie theater (which is approximately 16fl) as a relative guide.
Joined
·
5,672 Posts
No. 20fl is becoming the de facto standard if not minimum.
This figure is also gathering ground for future digital cinema standards. 20fl has been positively White Papered by the SMPTE, Barco and Christie.
The ISF are also working within the industry to achieve this as a minimum for digital cinema.
There is utterly no substitute for a 24fl image on a very large screen, listened to in excess of reference SPL.
This figure is also gathering ground for future digital cinema standards. 20fl has been positively White Papered by the SMPTE, Barco and Christie.
The ISF are also working within the industry to achieve this as a minimum for digital cinema.
There is utterly no substitute for a 24fl image on a very large screen, listened to in excess of reference SPL.
Joined
·
25,057 Posts
No. I do feel with a extremely high contrast projector and a very well controlled room light it is adequate however.
I certainly prefer over twenty no doubt.
Edit: The president of the ISF has recommended 20fL as the starting value for screening rooms.
Art
No. I do feel with a extremely high contrast projector and a very well controlled room light it is adequate however.
I certainly prefer over twenty no doubt.
Edit: The president of the ISF has recommended 20fL as the starting value for screening rooms.
Art
Joined
·
390 Posts
Someone one this forum put it very well a year or two ago. Let me paraphrase them from memory:
"For years the goal has been to duplicate the look of film in a movie theater, but as technology has rapidly improved I don't see why we should be limiting ourselves to mimicking the film-look and movie theater light levels. Our goal for the future should be to try to mimic the look of real life through our eyes."
"For years the goal has been to duplicate the look of film in a movie theater, but as technology has rapidly improved I don't see why we should be limiting ourselves to mimicking the film-look and movie theater light levels. Our goal for the future should be to try to mimic the look of real life through our eyes."
Joined
·
5,672 Posts
16fl is the guideline without film. Screening brightness is obviously less
16fl is the guideline without film. Screening brightness is obviously less
Joined
·
3,242 Posts
I personally care more about the black floor than I do brightness. 8)
Joined
·
5,672 Posts
Another thing worth mentioning is that visual acuity is far less in low light than bright. Some people may be losing detail.
Joined
·
13,534 Posts
I think a lot of the answer to this also has to do with the room you're viewing in. Depending on how much light control you have 12fL might not be enough anyways. My room is 100% light controlled and pretty much a black hole. If I get up above about 15fL I would start getting headaches, especially with content that has a lot of light transitions. Plasmas put out a lot of light but it's also good to use a bias light with them because of this very same reason.
Joined
·
6,444 Posts
When most source material was SD, going brighter than 12fl would often show up image artifacts such as mpg compression and I would find that distracting. In fact I felt 12 was the upper limit for SD and preferred somewhat less (7 to 9fL not unlike commercial theaters though I can watch at lower levels in a fully light controlled room provided the pj has a reasonable amount of contrast). It also made the image more cinematic and less like video (IIRC 12fL with film in the gate was derived to reduce gate flicker so is probably a legacy of the technology limitation rather than anything else). If I set up my pj for around 12fL with a new lamp, I may see some image noise But I know that it will be subdued as the lamp ages, so that tends to be brightest I really want it.
With HD of course image artifacts are (hopefully) much less so going brighter will not necessarily be at the detriment of image quality. Digital Theater should hopefully not have any source problems but if the black level suffers I don't necessarily see that as a good thing.
I've seen the 20fL figured mentioned quite a bit from the likes of Joe Kane, but what's the driving force behind 20fL as the new standard? Is it just because the eye naturally likes a brighter image or something else?
Gary
With HD of course image artifacts are (hopefully) much less so going brighter will not necessarily be at the detriment of image quality. Digital Theater should hopefully not have any source problems but if the black level suffers I don't necessarily see that as a good thing.
I've seen the 20fL figured mentioned quite a bit from the likes of Joe Kane, but what's the driving force behind 20fL as the new standard? Is it just because the eye naturally likes a brighter image or something else?
Gary
Joined
·
8,487 Posts
It depends...If the ANSI CR is high, then 12 to 16 ftLs is optimal, but if the ANSI CR is low then the picture needs to be brighter to make up for the lack of intrascene contrast in medium to bright scenes. Once you get to 20 ftLs the MPEG artifacts (on film, not digital animation) become too obvious to ignore any longer.
It depends...If the ANSI CR is high, then 12 to 16 ftLs is optimal, but if the ANSI CR is low then the picture needs to be brighter to make up for the lack of intrascene contrast in medium to bright scenes. Once you get to 20 ftLs the MPEG artifacts (on film, not digital animation) become too obvious to ignore any longer.
Joined
·
15,503 Posts
One other thing to note: Every bit of contrast helps percieved brightness levels. An image might be bordering on dim looking if your screen is against a light colored wall. Even with the lights out your eyes will tend to percieve the wall (especially in darker scenes). But if you completely mask that same image in black (e.g. velvet masking) it will appear brighter, in contrast to the background.
I've experimented with masking projected images, and have masked my plasma for years and this has been a consistent result.
I've experimented with masking projected images, and have masked my plasma for years and this has been a consistent result.
Joined
·
3,242 Posts
To a certain extent isnt it true that the more black your blacks are the greater chance that very low end detail will be lost, or at least glossed over unless you pause the image and look really hard? 8)
I can have my PJ as bright as up to 24 foot lamberts in my HT .. where black is essentially grey and I can see every nuance on the rocks in 300. I would much rather see black than grey, just to the point that that slightest nuance is (possibly) lost (unless you look really hard at a paused shot.)
This is really just a matter of preference. Even millerwill, who uses his RS1 with a HP, and prefers his image hovering around 20 foot lmberts wasnt convinced that all (or most all) of the detail is not lost with such black blacks, will attest that in the tests that we ran the detail was present in iris 1 just as it was in iris 3 in the very dark Casino Royale shots that we examined.
He actually was surprised at how good the image looked, although he admittedly preferred the brighter image.
I can have my PJ as bright as up to 24 foot lamberts in my HT .. where black is essentially grey and I can see every nuance on the rocks in 300. I would much rather see black than grey, just to the point that that slightest nuance is (possibly) lost (unless you look really hard at a paused shot.)
This is really just a matter of preference. Even millerwill, who uses his RS1 with a HP, and prefers his image hovering around 20 foot lmberts wasnt convinced that all (or most all) of the detail is not lost with such black blacks, will attest that in the tests that we ran the detail was present in iris 1 just as it was in iris 3 in the very dark Casino Royale shots that we examined.
He actually was surprised at how good the image looked, although he admittedly preferred the brighter image.
Joined
·
5,672 Posts
A lot depends on the contrast figure your PJ will give with the high fl figure. Sacrificing contrast for lumens is a lost cause, and vice versa.
Seeing an image with 24fl at high contrast numbers without using high gain and with large ANSI numbers is very engaging.
This is where digital cinema and HT are heading and genuinely belong.
Seeing an image with 24fl at high contrast numbers without using high gain and with large ANSI numbers is very engaging.
This is where digital cinema and HT are heading and genuinely belong.
1 - 20 of 519 Posts
