AVS Forum banner

21 - 38 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
Yup that should be an excellent fit for that seating distance. When setting up the NX7 be sure to set the aspect option in the installation menu to "zoom" to use the full panel for content 1.90:1 or wider. That allows you to use the full 17:9 panel of the projector and will net you an extra 10-12% light on scope films.



On my NX7 I have installation modes (lens memories) for:



-1.78:1 (aspect Native)

-1.85:1 (aspect Native)

-2.00:1 (aspect Zoom)

-2.20:1 (aspect Zoom)

-2.35:1 (aspect Zoom)


Awesome, thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,851 Posts
Thanks! Okay, so 150" diagonal and 139" wide, correct? My gain would be a true 1.3 gain (I believe) from Stewart with the ST130.
That's pretty big. Plan on more frequent bulb changes. And consider a DCR lens if you can swing it. Which would give you a brighter scope image and work great with the NX7.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
That's pretty big. Plan on more frequent bulb changes. And consider a DCR lens if you can swing it. Which would give you a brighter scope image and work great with the NX7.
Yep, and that's why I keep going back and forth on my size. Not sure 139" wide versus 130" wide makes much of a difference, but if so then I will consider the smaller size. Apparently, I definitely will need to save up for a DCR lens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,927 Posts
That's pretty big. Plan on more frequent bulb changes. And consider a DCR lens if you can swing it. Which would give you a brighter scope image and work great with the NX7.
It is right at the edge, but remember DTM allows us to get away with less brightness than we used to need. I have a buddy locally, user DLBeck, that has been using that sized scope screen (Seymour AT) with an RS500 for years with good results.

Obviously the DCR would be optimal, but it costs as much or more than an NX7.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
It is right at the edge, but remember DTM allows us to get away with less brightness than we used to need. I have a buddy locally, user DLBeck, that has been using that sized scope screen (Seymour AT) with an RS500 for years with good results.

Obviously the DCR would be optimal, but it costs as much or more than NX7.
This is good to know (re your buddy). I currently have a Seymour AT 150" 16:9 screen and will move to a higher gain non-AT screen. Makes me feel better about brightness/HDR haha.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,927 Posts
Yep, and that's why I keep going back and forth on my size. Not sure 139" wide versus 130" wide makes much of a difference, but if so then I will consider the smaller size. Apparently, I definitely will need to save up for a DCR lens.
I wouldn't say definitely. It would be an excellent addition, but with DTM and a positive gain screen I think you will be quite happy. A 130" wide screen at your seating distance would look small IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,927 Posts
This is good to know (re your buddy). I currently have a Seymour AT 150" 16:9 screen and will move to a higher gain non-AT screen. Makes me feel better about brightness/HDR haha.
Google "Home theater of the month The Savoy". In those articles he's using his old Sony 50ES with a Panamorph, but moved to an RS500 and no anamorphic lens (lens memory).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
I wouldn't say definitely. It would be an excellent addition, but with DTM and a positive gain screen I think you will be quite happy. A 130" wide screen at your seating distance would look small IMO.
I believe so too, especially since I'm used to a 150" diagonal 16:9 screen. I have always felt that it is a little too big for me, and my wife and even a few buddies have said that it might be a little too big, so I think the scope 150" and even smaller 16:9 image will be great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,572 Posts
I'm sitting at 11' with a 113.5" 2.35 screen. This yields a 91" 16:9 image. And I reckon that's a seating distance of nearly 3x screen height. I can't fit a screen any wider than that.

But not sure I'd have it any other way. Approximately 75% of the movies I watch are scope and I get the nice masking of my screen. I don't really mind the smaller 91" 16:9 screen size for other movies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,163 Posts
I'm sitting at 11' with a 113.5" 2.35 screen. This yields a 91" 16:9 image. And I reckon that's a seating distance of nearly 3x screen height. I can't fit a screen any wider than that.

But not sure I'd have it any other way. Approximately 75% of the movies I watch are scope and I get the nice masking of my screen. I don't really mind the smaller 91" 16:9 screen size for other movies.
I like immersion, but if I went to the theater and there were two seats left one in the front row and one in the back row I would take the back row. It would have very little impact on me enjoying the movie.

Given CIH and a single row fixed seat location I would error on the side of less immersion. Most likely between 2.5-3.0 X SH.

Having a variable immersion setup has given me the chance to experiment with family members. No one has ever complained about a lower immersion they just enjoy. If I get ridiculously large for say TV I will get the can you back this down a little comment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,306 Posts
My first row is 11 feet from a 130 235/1 eulenvision screen. If that is too close for some of my guests i have 2 rows behind that. Everybody is happy that way. After going from a 16/9 screen i could never go back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,851 Posts
My first row is 11 feet from a 130 235/1 eulenvision screen. If that is too close for some of my guests i have 2 rows behind that. Everybody is happy that way. After going from a 16/9 screen i could never go back.
My setup is about the same - just under 10' away from a 128" 2.35:1 screen. Except I have one row. So anyone that thinks they are too close has to drink until they have tunnel vision and the screen recedes. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
It is right at the edge, but remember DTM allows us to get away with less brightness than we used to need. I have a buddy locally, user DLBeck, that has been using that sized scope screen (Seymour AT) with an RS500 for years with good results.



Obviously the DCR would be optimal, but it costs as much or more than an NX7.


What do you think is the minimum brightness (in fL) for HDR with DTM?

There seem to be two camps. Those who say 30 + fL still needed, and those who say more traditional SDR brightness (16-20 fL) will look nearly identical with good DTM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
270 Posts
I'm in a similar boat atm - ~ 13' first row - and am thinking of an N7 and 140" wide 2.4:1 screen. Either AT with a DCR lens, or Studiotek 130 g4 without. If bugdet allowed, it would be Studiotek 100 and DCR lens, but the line must be drawn somewhere! It's largely subjective, but in our previous place we were 13' from a 119" 16:9 screen and 16:9 content was perfect to my eyes. This was after much experimentation and 4-5 other screens of various sizes. Scope content was too small for sure. 140" wide 2.4:1 will give that 16:9 I know we like and great big scope content that should be as comfotable for most other presentations. Either way, good luck with whatevere you end up with and enjoy the big screen!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,851 Posts
What do you think is the minimum brightness (in fL) for HDR with DTM?

There seem to be two camps. Those who say 30 + fL still needed, and those who say more traditional SDR brightness (16-20 fL) will look nearly identical with good DTM.
I watch Blu-ray's / 1080p at 20 foot lamberts, so I'm biased towards a brighter HDR picture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
I watch Blu-ray's / 1080p at 20 foot lamberts, so I'm biased towards a brighter HDR picture.
I know you have two motorized screens. But in your opinion , what is the minimum seating distance these days (ie with Lumagen Radiance Pro up-scaling) for 1080p content ? 4K is 2.0-2.5 x screen height. What about upscaled 1080p?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,851 Posts
I know you have two motorized screens. But in your opinion , what is the minimum seating distance these days (ie with Lumagen Radiance Pro up-scaling) for 1080p content ? 4K is 2.0-2.5 x screen height. What about upscaled 1080p?
I sit at the same seating distance for 1080p and 4K - about 10' 4" from a 122" diagonal 16:9 Cima Neve, and about 9' 8" from a 128" diagonal 2.35:1 ST130.
 
21 - 38 of 38 Posts
Top