AVS Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Quick vote please.

MLP (row 1) is 10 feet eyes to screen. There is also a row 2.

Which 2.40 scope screen (with side masking) would you prefer :

140” wide x 58” high (16:9= 103x58”)

130” wide x 54” high (16:9= 96x54”)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,161 Posts
58” high is 2.07 X screen height seating distance.

54” high is 2.22 X screen height seating distance.

2.50 X screen height is like sitting in the middle row of most commercial theaters.

You asked what I would prefer and based on the fact you have a second row in the planning I would want the first row pretty close to what I would want as max immersion so as to not give away too much of the second rows immersion. I personally am ok with 2.0 X SH for CIH and ok with 1.5 X SH for IMAX.

Thus my answer of 140” above.

If I was @Craig Peer I would sit in the first row and let my wife sit in the second row. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,826 Posts
58” high is 2.07 X screen height seating distance.

54” high is 2.22 X screen height seating distance.

2.50 X screen height is like sitting in the middle row of most commercial theaters.

You asked what I would prefer and based on the fact you have a second row in the planning I would want the first row pretty close to what I would want as max immersion so as to not give away too much of the second rows immersion. I personally am ok with 2.0 X SH for CIH and ok with 1.5 X SH for IMAX.

Thus my answer of 140” above.

If I was @Craig Peer I would sit in the first row and let my wife sit in the second row. :D
If you were me you would only have one row. Everyone in my theater gets a front row seat, and everyone gets to drink the top shelf stuff too. Nobody has to sit in the coach section. ;) Besides, I like to sit next to my wife.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
58” high is 2.07 X screen height seating distance.



54” high is 2.22 X screen height seating distance.



2.50 X screen height is like sitting in the middle row of most commercial theaters.



You asked what I would prefer and based on the fact you have a second row in the planning I would want the first row pretty close to what I would want as max immersion so as to not give away too much of the second rows immersion. I personally am ok with 2.0 X SH for CIH and ok with 1.5 X SH for IMAX.



Thus my answer of 140” above.



If I was @Craig Peer I would sit in the first row and let my wife sit in the second row. :D

Lol. Any other votes (what row our wives sit is a whole nother thread !).

Where is (2.07 x screen height) in a commercial theater?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,161 Posts
Lol. Any other votes (what row our wives sit is a whole nother thread !).

Where is (2.07 x screen height) in a commercial theater?
Most common seating in theaters falls between 2.0 and 3.0 X SH as I understand. So 1/3 to 2/3 back is my guess without doing the math.

Wives is a whole different matter. You are correct.:eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Most common seating in theaters falls between 2.0 and 3.0 X SH as I understand. So 1/3 to 2/3 back is my guess without doing the math.



Wives is a whole different matter. You are correct.:eek:


Okay. I was advised 2.0 x SH is nearly first row ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,161 Posts
Okay. I was advised 2.0 x SH is nearly first row ?
Measure the height of the monitor you are typing this on and then double that and put your eyes that distance from the monitor. That will simulate 2X immersion. Play a movie on your computer and see what you think. Or better yet do it with your TV playing a scope movie. Measure the height of the image and double that. then try 2.5X.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,826 Posts
Okay. I was advised 2.0 x SH is nearly first row ?
My seating distance - at least with my 2.35:1 screen, equates to the front of the middle section at a commercial theater. My 16:9 screen - maybe a little closer, but not being as wide, it doesn't seem as immersive over all. It might help to find someone with a home theater nearby and bring a tape measure ( or a Magnolia / Best Buy ) and see things in person.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,161 Posts
Okay. I was advised 2.0 x SH is nearly first row ?

Here is a good review comparing SMPTE and THX specs and their relative placement in commercial theaters showing screen height also as a factor in CIH.

http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/2013314viewing-angles/

One thing to keep in mind if you review some commercial theaters testing immersion is the upward angle of the more immersive distances. It is one thing to watch 2X SH where your eyes are lined up with the center or slightly blow the center of the screen and another where you your eyes line up with the bottom of the screen. IMAX addressed this best with their stadium seating. At home with a single row you have lots of freedom a double row you have to think about screen height / immersion a little different.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,161 Posts
I will add to my last post and the logic behind THX specs (maybe a little dated) and what I observe reading 100s of these screen size seating distance posts over the last few years.

It seems to me with 1080p and now 4k people in general are migrating towards greater than THX immersion still well within the range it covers but if you polled a lot of people here you would find the average closer than the THX sweet spot.

The other thing I have observed is I hear far more people now with 4k wishing they had more immersion than they thought they wanted over time. Most people that enjoy movies but don’t have a FP HT watch at home on large TVs and go to a FP theater maybe once a month or every other week, when you get a theater at home you will be watching 1-2 movies a day most likely. There is something with getting accustomed to immersion that makes a lot of people like it more.

I thought about this a lot and found it true in my case. I also only have a single row and found it hard to lock onto one screen size that suited us both equally not to mention our guests that see FP movies maybe 2-3 times a year. For those reasons and others I sized my image to a max size and then do a variable size presentation method with zoom to accommodate all our needs. My theory is you can go smaller but you can’t go bigger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,922 Posts
2.2x seating distance to screen height is still going to be plenty immersive enough for 4K. And one of the prime concerns for 4K is getting enough light output to make HDR workable. Definitely going to be easier to attain on the smaller screen.
 

·
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
140" wide could be a bit too big from 10'. My wife would certainly say so.
No way. My friend has a 185" 16x9 at 11 feet and its awesome. No way too close.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,161 Posts
The 140” screen is about 16% larger than the 130” screen so as mentioned above if that 16% means a lot in terms of brightness then that is a factor. Almost no one can notice a 16% change in brightness unless it is on the edge brightness limits. Otherwise our eyes just adjust for the change.

As to us guessing at what the OP might like his question in his first post was “Would you prefer.” I took that as what size given those two sizes with a fixed seating distance of 10’ I would prefer. :)
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top