AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,471 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Seating distance from screen is 15ft

Throw distance is 15 and a half ft

Im choosing between a 110" screen or a 123" screen. Im afraid 123" might be too big.

I have a JVC RS400 which I intend to use for daily viewing for around 5 hours per day. I will watch tv and movies on this setup.

So which size do you all suggest? I will be using a 1.4 gain EPV Darkstar screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
There is no right answer here, it really depends on what your personal preferences are. BUT my personal opinion is that 123" will not be too big, and its not even that far-fetched to consider bigger than that. 15 feet from the screen is a pretty good distance.

One generalization is to sit a distance which is 1.5x the screen width. At 15 feet away, that's a 137" diagonal. Should you go out and buy a screen this big? Not necessarily. But is it crazy to get one this large? Certainly not.

My suggestion may be to try projecting each of these image sizes onto a plain wall (if possible) and seeing if either is preferable. Then buy the screen afterwards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Just my 2 cents worth, my room is 19' deep, throw is 17'5" and we sit back apx 13'. We did as Maccata08 suggested and put 2 queen sheets on the wall then set projector up to see what was comfortable to watch. We went with a 158" 2:35 as we will watch 80% movies. We now set it at 120" to watch HDTV, if we go full height, it is uncomfortable to watch. Just by reducing the top image by 7" makes all the difference. I think you are going to be more limited by your throw so set it as far back as you can and experiment. I am about maxed out by my throw, in a light controlled room with an Epson 5040, dialed down to Eco mode and brightness at 45% otherwise its too bright.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,556 Posts
With that projector you should be doing a CIH or CIH+Imax presentation method. In that case the size of your screen and viewing distance should be related to a function of screen height. The sweat spot for most people doing CIH is 2X to 2.5X screen height = seating distance. So 15 x 12/2 = 90” and 15 x 12/2.5 = 72”
90 x 160 or a 184” screen for 16:9 content , 90 x 215 or a 233” scope screen would be considered immersive viewing
72 x 128 or a 147” screen for 16:9 content , 72 x 172 or a 187” scope screen would be considered middle of the theater seating.

A 123” 16:9 screen would have a height of 60” 180/60 = 3x screen height and when viewing scope letterboxed inside it if you do CIW presentation the height of the scope image would be 45” 180/45 = 4x screen height. 4x screen height is like sitting in the back row of the theater.

I won’t compute the 110” screen but it would be like sitting out in the lobby behind the theater.

It is a personal thing as mentioned above and if you have two rows of seats then the back seating at 4x SH might be logical. Most people the more they watch build a preference for more immersion. I watch at about 2x SH and find it quite comfortable for most movies. Sometimes when people have guests over that are not theater fanatics like we are here they will like a little less immersion like 2.5 or 3X SH.

Hope this helps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,791 Posts
@LumensLover, am I missing something here? It seems as if you've bought and then flipped on AVS Forum Classifieds at least a dozen different projectors and screens. After all that experience you really don't know what size image works for you? Just seems odd as that question is most often asked by those with zero front projection experience.

Anyway, from 15' a 110" screen is definitely smaller than average and a 123" screen is a little smaller than average compared with others who've posted on AVS Forum about their screen size and viewing distance preferences. From 15' your image will appear to be about the same size as a 75"-80" flatscreen TV viewed from 10', i.e. not very immersive or cinematic which is the primary reason for choosing front projection over a TV in the first place.

With all the projector and screen flipping you've done already maybe you could just order a half dozen different screen sizes and then flip the ones that don't work for you. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
486 Posts
from 15' a 110" screen is definitely smaller than average and a 123" screen is a little smaller than average compared with others who've posted on AVS Forum about their screen size and viewing distance preferences...:D
My wife and I have been back 18' from a 106" diagonal screen for 8 plus years. It has been comfortable and more than adequate, to our way of thinking much preferable to a comparably priced LCD. Further, any guests who see the screen always go "wow."

However, my next screen will be 123" diagonal.

I have seen HT installers who do it for a living post that they have never had a customer complain their screen was too big. Instead, if they love a large screen when new they go even larger on the next go round.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,471 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
@LumensLover, am I missing something here? It seems as if you've bought and then flipped on AVS Forum Classifieds at least a dozen different projectors and screens. After all that experience you really don't know what size image works for you? Just seems odd as that question is most often asked by those with zero front projection experience.

Anyway, from 15' a 110" screen is definitely smaller than average and a 123" screen is a little smaller than average compared with others who've posted on AVS Forum about their screen size and viewing distance preferences. From 15' your image will appear to be about the same size as a 75"-80" flatscreen TV viewed from 10', i.e. not very immersive or cinematic which is the primary reason for choosing front projection over a TV in the first place.

With all the projector and screen flipping you've done already maybe you could just order a half dozen different screen sizes and then flip the ones that don't work for you. :D
Lol.Touche Dave. Haha. Well the reason for my question is that I am constantly wrestling with finding the "sweet spot" between image size and image quality. It is true that I have owned many, many different screens. However since I moved to a new home my ceilings are only 8ft tall.

The usable space in my loft is 14 and half feet wide by 18 ft deep. I moved from a condo with 15ft high vault ceilings and the living room was 16 ft wide by 16ft deep.

I tried various zoom settings at my new home at 106,110,114, and 123 inches. The best mix of clarity, brightness, and sharpness seems to be 110" when sitting 15ft away from the screen in my opinion.

However I constantly see guys saying how they love 130 inch and bigger screens online here with seating within the same distance range as mine. It is making me question myself. Are guys not prioritizing image quality as much as sheer size?

Keep in mind I use my projector as a tv replacement and for movies at night so I watch alot of shows on Directv which do not look very good when blown up to over 120".

Also, I only use alr screens with a dark substrate so any 130" or bigger screen is out of the question for me because there is no high contrast projector in my budget with enough lumens to light up a dark substrate 130 inch or bigger alr screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,791 Posts
@LumensLover, it's absolutely true that the closer to a projection screen you get the easier it is to see flaws, but some are more interested in the immersion of a huge image than in fine detail. We're all wired a little differently and it seems you're more concerned about a finely detailed image than in absolute size. Nothing wrong with either style of viewing as it comes down to pure personal preference.

If it's primarily just you viewing and you prefer different image sizes for different quality content, several forum members have dealt with that issue by moving their viewing seat closer or further from the screen as appropriate for the content being viewed. I've done it myself. My wife prefers viewing our 100" screen from 10', so that's where our seats are located. But I have my seat on sliders and sometimes when viewing alone with some high-quality content I'll just scoot my seat 2' closer to the screen and view the 100" screen from 8' for more immersion.

If you decide to do this then you could size the screen so that lower-quality content looks OK from your normal 15' viewing distance and then scoot your seat several feet closer to the screen for higher-quality content. Sliding your chair closer or further from the screen has a similar effect to using a projector's zoom lens to increase or decrease image size on a blank wall. I like to call it seat zoom. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,752 Posts
Does the room allow you to sit closer to the 123" DarkStar for HD movies (around 10ft back) and the RS400 allow you to zoom-memory shrink your 123" image down to around 80" for direct TV?

I don't know if your room or seating width would allow that to work, but that's another alternative for bright and immersive high-quality content without making the lower-quality content look noticeably crummy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,137 Posts
Lol.Touche Dave. Haha. Well the reason for my question is that I am constantly wrestling with finding the "sweet spot" between image size and image quality. It is true that I have owned many, many different screens. However since I moved to a new home my ceilings are only 8ft tall.

The usable space in my loft is 14 and half feet wide by 18 ft deep. I moved from a condo with 15ft high vault ceilings and the living room was 16 ft wide by 16ft deep.

I tried various zoom settings at my new home at 106,110,114, and 123 inches. The best mix of clarity, brightness, and sharpness seems to be 110" when sitting 15ft away from the screen in my opinion.

However I constantly see guys saying how they love 130 inch and bigger screens online here with seating within the same distance range as mine. It is making me question myself. Are guys not prioritizing image quality as much as sheer size?

Keep in mind I use my projector as a tv replacement and for movies at night so I watch alot of shows on Directv which do not look very good when blown up to over 120".

Also, I only use alr screens with a dark substrate so any 130" or bigger screen is out of the question for me because there is no high contrast projector in my budget with enough lumens to light up a dark substrate 130 inch or bigger alr screen.
I'm sitting 10' 6" from a 123" diagonal 16:9 Stewart Cima Neve screen. But, I pretty much only watch Blu-rays and 4K Blu-rays. HDTV does not look as good. But if you are going to be sitting 15' away, I'd probably still recommend a 123" screen.

As far as image quality goes, here's a Blu-ray -





 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,137 Posts
Seating distance from screen is 15ft

Throw distance is 15 and a half ft

Im choosing between a 110" screen or a 123" screen. Im afraid 123" might be too big.

I have a JVC RS400 which I intend to use for daily viewing for around 5 hours per day. I will watch tv and movies on this setup.

So which size do you all suggest? I will be using a 1.4 gain EPV Darkstar screen.
Why that particular screen ? Just curious. A picture or two of your room would be useful.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,471 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
@LumensLover, it's absolutely true that the closer to a projection screen you get the easier it is to see flaws, but some are more interested in the immersion of a huge image than in fine detail. We're all wired a little differently and it seems you're more concerned about a finely detailed image than in absolute size. Nothing wrong with either style of viewing as it comes down to pure personal preference.

If it's primarily just you viewing and you prefer different image sizes for different quality content, several forum members have dealt with that issue by moving their viewing seat closer or further from the screen as appropriate for the content being viewed. I've done it myself. My wife prefers viewing our 100" screen from 10', so that's where our seats are located. But I have my seat on sliders and sometimes when viewing alone with some high-quality content I'll just scoot my seat 2' closer to the screen and view the 100" screen from 8' for more immersion.

If you decide to do this then you could size the screen so that lower-quality content looks OK from your normal 15' viewing distance and then scoot your seat several feet closer to the screen for higher-quality content. Sliding your chair closer or further from the screen has a similar effect to using a projector's zoom lens to increase or decrease image size on a blank wall. I like to call it seat zoom. :)
Thanks for the advice Dave. Image quality is my number one priority. However I am willing to sacrifice a small portion of image quality for a good size screen. In all honesty, I can't see any pixels with 4K eshift enabled.

Even when I stand directly in front of a 123" image. So the image for most shows in hd and my blurays looks exceedingly good at 123". I am worried about brightness as the lamp ages with a 123" alr screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,791 Posts
... I am worried about brightness as the lamp ages with a 123" alr screen.
One of the nice things about your JVC is that it has a manual iris. Ideally with a new lamp you would select a screen size/gain matched to your projector that would allow you to start off with the iris closed way down. As the lamp slowly dims with age you would periodically open the manual iris a stop at a time to restore image brightness lost to the fading lamp. You may want to address this specific question in the RS400 owners thread for advice from experienced owners.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,137 Posts
One of the nice things about your JVC is that it has a manual iris. Ideally with a new lamp you would select a screen size/gain matched to your projector that would allow you to start off with the iris closed way down. As the lamp slowly dims with age you would periodically open the manual iris a stop at a time to restore image brightness lost to the fading lamp. You may want to address this specific question in the RS400 owners thread for advice from experienced owners.
And an inexpensive light meter like the DR meter on Amazon will make that pretty easy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
610 Posts
With that projector you should be doing a CIH or CIH+Imax presentation method. In that case the size of your screen and viewing distance should be related to a function of screen height. The sweat spot for most people doing CIH is 2X to 2.5X screen height = seating distance. So 15 x 12/2 = 90” and 15 x 12/2.5 = 72”
90 x 160 or a 184” screen for 16:9 content , 90 x 215 or a 233” scope screen would be considered immersive viewing
72 x 128 or a 147” screen for 16:9 content , 72 x 172 or a 187” scope screen would be considered middle of the theater seating.

A 123” 16:9 screen would have a height of 60” 180/60 = 3x screen height and when viewing scope letterboxed inside it if you do CIW presentation the height of the scope image would be 45” 180/45 = 4x screen height. 4x screen height is like sitting in the back row of the theater.

I won’t compute the 110” screen but it would be like sitting out in the lobby behind the theater.

It is a personal thing as mentioned above and if you have two rows of seats then the back seating at 4x SH might be logical. Most people the more they watch build a preference for more immersion. I watch at about 2x SH and find it quite comfortable for most movies. Sometimes when people have guests over that are not theater fanatics like we are here they will like a little less immersion like 2.5 or 3X SH.

Hope this helps.
Is anybody doing less than 2x to get a large screen sense? If so, what are you using? I'm considering doing 1.7x
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,752 Posts
Is anybody doing less than 2x to get a large screen sense? If so, what are you using? I'm considering doing 1.7x
I'll sometimes watch 16:9 content on a matte white ~1.0gain screen at 115"-diagonal (about 56.5inches tall) from a viewing-distance of around 8ft. I think that's 1.7:1 distance:height, but I don't have the room length to fill 2.39aspect at that height.

It's fun, but it can feel sickening with a lot of jumpy/fast-motion content.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,471 Posts
Discussion Starter #18 (Edited)
I think 123" will be fine. I use the jvc rs500 on a 160" wide and am perfectly happy with image quality.
Thank you for your input. I must admit the JVC RS400 has given me my first taste of a high contrast picture. Now I want more! Desperately searching for a good deal on a used R500/X750R now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,556 Posts
Is anybody doing less than 2x to get a large screen sense? If so, what are you using? I'm considering doing 1.7x
Yes. If you do CIH+Imax with a 2X viewing distance for both scope and flat when you do Imax the width stays the same as scope but the height goes full frame 16:9. The difference is Imax content is carefully framed to account for the additional vertical immersion. Content is very important being matched to immersion. If you go to the Imax site and view the comparison between the movie Sully in scope and Imax you will see great examples of what is in the extra height. Avatar is another movie that plays nice in the Imax immersion size.

2X is where I like to start, although I use a system I call PIA and if you want to read about that there is a thread in the CIH forum I started.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,471 Posts
Discussion Starter #20 (Edited)
Thank you to everyone for your suggestions. I placed my order for a 123 inch Dark Star 1.4 gain screen yesterday. I also figured out why my image looked a littled blowed out at 120".

My prepro was upscaling the image instead of passing it through. Too much image processing resulting in noise in the picture and improper aspect size. Got it in pass through mode with no upscaling now.

The image at 123 inches with eshift on looks crisp and sharp now.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top