AVS Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Is seating at 2.0x the image height (of a scope 2.40 screen) considered the closest that is comfortable for HD and 4K content ?

I do realize it’s personal preference. Where would this distance be analogous to sitting in a commercial theater ? 1/4 of the way back ?
 

·
Super Moderator
JVC RS4500 | ST130 G4 135" | MRX 720 | MC303 MC152 | 6.1.4: B&W 802D3, 805D3, 702S2 | 4x15 IB Subs
Joined
·
10,843 Posts
Is seating at 2.0x the image height (of a scope 2.40 screen) considered the closest that is comfortable for HD and 4K content ?

I do realize it’s personal preference. Where would this distance be analogous to sitting in a commercial theater ? 1/4 of the way back ?
Honestly, if you want to benefit from native 4K, that seating distance seems about right. I'd say you want to be *inside* 1 screen width away. Forget what you typically see in the theater. Those theaters are not centered around benefiting from 4K resolution and are typically not even 4K.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
Is seating at 2.0x the image height (of a scope 2.40 screen) considered the closest that is comfortable for HD and 4K content ?

I do realize it’s personal preference. Where would this distance be analogous to sitting in a commercial theater ? 1/4 of the way back ?
I think so. For what it's worth, the SMPTE guidelines for commercial cinemas are 2.0x height as the closest acceptable distance, 3.0x height ideal, and 4.0x height farthest. The original CinemaScope reference, THX reference and Dolby references all converge somewhere between 2.5x and 3.0x height.

For what it's worth, the last truly great home cinema I visited had a Scope screen and the front row was 2.35x height (1.0x width), and I wouldn't have wanted to sit any closer than that - it was comfortable, but truly filled my horizontal field of view.

In terms of commercial cinema, in most auditoriums 2.0x height would be a little closer than 1/4 back I think, although of course there is a lot of variability here, with better cinemas leaving the front of the auditorium empty of seats so that the front rows are not too close.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,161 Posts
I prefer screen height as the reference rather than width or diagonal some use. If CIH is the preferred starting point for all presentation then height is what I think should be used.

From the unofficial reading here from dozens of thread based around seating distance/screen size/immersion I would say most people historically like about 2.5xSH with the trend going closer with each improvement in PQ at home.

Right now I use variable immersion and 2.0xSH is about as close as I would like and 1.5xSH for IMAX content. Many of my guests find that a bit large and with variable I can back them away to a point they like. Likewise if I’m watching content that has a DVD like PQ I back myself away to 2.5 as it improves PQ being slightly less immersive. Much of network TV uses a cinematography process as if it was intended for a smaller screen as well and I’m fine watching TV at 3.0xSH

So in short if all I was watching was modern blockbuster movies in 4k and I was watching alone I would say 2.0xSH would be perfect for me and 1.5xSH for IMAX. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,056 Posts
From the unofficial reading here from dozens of thread based around seating distance/screen size/immersion I would say most people historically like about 2.5xSH with the trend going closer with each improvement in PQ at home.
I think this observation has a lot of merit, particularly for the CIH crowd. 16x9 users probably sit closer (you know, so their scope movies don't make them cry).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,161 Posts
I think this observation has a lot of merit, particularly for the CIH crowd. 16x9 users probably sit closer (you know, so their scope movies don't make them cry).
I agree. There is a compromise most CIW viewers make splitting the difference, and likewise some CIH viewers may take a little more width at the cost of getting enough height in their 1.85 content. It is and will most likely be argued about CIH because Scope plays greater on our peripheral vision and side to side it goes on virtually to infinity. A similar argument on peripheral vision should be made with regards to IMAX but is seldom made. Vision doesn’t suddenly become uncomfortable in ether direction as we walk around everyday in normal life seeing all that our vision can see. We don’t exactly ignore everything above a certain width or height we view it in a different way called peripheral vision.

For me it isn’t about trying to look into these areas non stop just like we don’t twirl our eyes around all day walking around. Something in those areas has to trigger our vision to look there then that becomes our central vision. :)
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top