AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I’m trying to decide what size screen I’ll use once I take the plunge and get a projector (leaning towards AE100) but I wanted to know if there is any correlation between screen size and picture quality. In other words, everything else being the same, projector, screen type, line doubler, lighting…… do you get better picture quality with a small picture verses a large picture?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
It depends entirely on the source. If you try to display some low-res, snow-filled OTA NTSC image from a pair of rabbit ears on a 120" screen from 5 feet away, it will look like Hell. On the other hand, sitting the same distance on say a 5" screen won't look nearly so bad. ;)


That said, since I own the AE100 I might be able to suggest a screen size for you if you tell me your room dimensions, how far away the projector will be mounted, and how far away you'll be sitting.


Ken
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,378 Posts
Yes... all things being equal, a smaller picture will hide imperfections better than a larger one. Actually, it's not the picture size, but rather the picture width to viewing distance ratio.


For instance, a 5' wide picture viewed at 10' (2x) will hide imperfections (screen door, scaling artifacts... etc) more than at 7.5' (1.5x).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Kenfab, Jpinto ..


on this subject... hopefully you can help me out...


i'm snaggin an AE100 at the end of this week ..


this is my first delv into FP ... owned several 4:3 data projectors in the past, never an HT qual one.


I have a 13.5' x 15' room for my HT ... dedicated w/ complete light control. Hard wood floors.


I have chosen the AE100 for 90% cost reasons. I think if the funds were available i would have to go w/ the tw100. but the AE100 w/ it's features fits the bill very nicely.


My question after all that ..


i have obviously chosen to project onto a 13' wide wall... i finished building my screen this last weekend .. .it's a variation of the DIY parkland screen.... but a little more detailed. .. pics on their way .... very very happy w/ it ... tested w/ a smaller infocus unit, and colors are GREAT !


So onto the question ...


i chose for screen dimensions of 47" x 83.5" or somewhere right in there ...(16:9 calcs) ....


which yields something ike a 96" diag..... that being very very clost to 8ft. I will be sitting the rear row at 13ft from the screen which is almost 1.5x screen width. And the front row heads willl be at 9 ft. Which is only 1x screen distance .....


In your opinion ... did i build too big ?.. i know that optimal was 1.5x ... the back row will have MOST of my seating.... so that's what i built the screen size around ...


Will 1x be viewable ?..

Sources will be


HTPC 50% DVD 50% compressed AVI and MPG sources

Xbox HD pack w/ VGA adapter

and very minimal Digital Cable.


Soon

Direct TV

OTA HDTV


Any comments ?


-Eradan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,378 Posts
I viewed a movie on the weekend at 1x and it was fine other than the fact that screendoor is quite noticable. 1.5x is preferrable. Worse comes to worse, you can always reduce the image size a little bit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Depending on the layout of the room, go as big as possible. A lot of people tend to sell the capabilites of a projector short. I've got a LCD Hitachi s225 and I'm playing it on a 15 foot screen, sitting 15 feet back (although 20 is better). The picture is just amazing and really puts the 'cinema' into home cinema.


Cheers,


Brian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,800 Posts
I've never understood the logic of getting a FP and sitting 2-3X screen width like some do. There really is no point in moving up from a RPTV if you are going to sit that far back. One thing I have noticed is that at a movie theater the seats I seem to gravitate to are about 1.5X screen width.


Brian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
I sit just about 2X the width from my screen (92"Wide 16:9 -> 2x=15.4'). Brian, with all due respect to your assertion that " There really is no point in moving up from a RPTV if you are going to sit that far back", I must strongly disagree. I have a 65" 16:9 RPTV that looks *much* smaller sitting at the same spot. You can image how small my 36" Wega looks after I roll up the screen! ;)


Ken
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
Eradan, I'm not sure if you're referring to my post or you're just posing a general question to the masses, but as I indicated in the first sentence of my last post "I sit just about 2X the width from my screen (92"Wide 16:9 -> 2x=15.4')".


Ken
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,112 Posts
It's not so much picture size when comparing RPTV to FPTV but rather the image quality. My CRT totally smokes an RPTV in PQ. So while I may be sitting further back (my pj is floor mounted so I have to) than if I had an RPTV, the image is much better. You project a data grade FPTV image onto the smallest area possible you will get one bitchin' image. A projected image is usually more realistic as gaps aren't very visable. Take a look at a HDTV RPTV and you will see RGB pixels and black gaps between the pixels. Take a look at a CRT or modern digital FPTV and you will see an overlay of R, G, and B pixels (explicitly an overlay with CRT as CRT res isn't static) which will yield a more realistic image.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,927 Posts
I am just going to chime in with what I use and how I use it. I have a older Sanyo 832x624 projector (silly mac resolution, but hay its better then 800x600!) with a good power zoom lense. Now for sources I have Dish, S-VHS VCR for locals via cable, and DVD all coming through a HTPC. Now for 1.33 (4:3) programming I zoom the picture all the way in to make it as small as the throw distance allows. Then I mask the screen accordingly. For 1.85 programming I zoom it out a little, and yet a little more for 2.35, followed up by proper masking. It gives me a constant area screen system or atleast close enough for me to call in constant area. This does several things for me, one it puts the crummiest programing DISH and Cable programming the smallest width, but yet it uses the most pixels of the projector. With DVDs and some letterbox DISH programming the higher quality source (mianly DVDs) lets me go bigger (wider) more clearly. My point is what Kenfab had said, the crummery the source the smaller you'll want the picture. Oh and constant are does one more thing, it keeps the scope of sizes in check giving you the sense your not missing out on picture size in any of the formats.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top