That THX guideline is commonly misunderstood as a recommended viewing angle but it’s actually a recommended MINIMUM viewing angle. You can see it in this chart

In my travels it seems like 50 +/-5 degrees is where people end up settling

 

A thread/poll from not long ago:

https://www.avsforum.com/threads/field-of-view-poll.3043476/?post_id=57445564#post-57445564

My FOV is a little over 50deg.

 

50 ish

 

My preferred viewing angle is wherever my MLP is relative to my screen.

 

Seeing more of the screen clearly, does not equate to immersion. With the larger image you were more immersed, but felt that it was too much. Making it smaller, you were actually less immersed, but enjoyed it more.

 

I'd argue that enjoying the movie is part of immersion

 

I prefer 40°

 

Don't care about the angle, it is what it is when I had fine tuned the seating distance to a comfortable spot. Distance calculated from the angle may be used as a starting point but the important thing is to find the right spot, that is always a personal preference.

 

50 degrees for movies and tv series. The only times that made me question the size of it was on content like cowboy bebop and one piece live action shows due to their fisheye camera lense creative choice.

When I go to imax in auckland queen st at row h it's a bit more than 50 degrees.

 

I sit 7 feet from my 120-inch screen for a viewing angle of around 64 degrees. Not for everyone, but it is perfect for me. In my theater I'm the only one that I need to please!

 

I did that for a few weeks. Then I gradually started moving it back. At first the 65 degrees or so was good but I just started to feel like it was too much.

 

Not sure what the viewing angle is, my couch is 2.7 metres away from a 135 inch sceen. Wouldn't go further back if the room/projector allows it.

Update - 58 according to Viewing Distance Calculator -PSS

 

It is really not viewing angle that makes us feel over or under immersed in the movie or show we are watching. Our eyes and vision are quite tolerant of different widths. It is height that plays a larger part in where we like to be, that and the cinematography of the media being shown.



Classic theater presentation is CIH constant image height with a 2.4:1 AR wide screen. In more modern times IMAX AR has become more of an issue to conceder as well. It is a little unclear where the classic Academy AR 1.37:1 fits in as well. Without a doubt CIH I believe is a better presentation than CIW constant image width like many people do more like TV where you have a 16:9 screen and let everything fit as large as it can.



THX specs go back a ways to the day of film before digital and even at home as things progressed and resolution became better many people were being held off the immersion they didn’t know they liked yet because of resolution and pixel size.



If I had to guess I would say most avid movie watchers today enjoy an immersion level between 2.0 and 2.5 times the height of their image be it flat 1.85, scope 2.40, high quality TV 16:9 or some of the new prestige TV ARs of 2.0, 2.2. The exception for most are movies like Top Gun Maverick that is presented in two different ARs, both scope and taller IMAX 1.9. Those type IMAX movies play best as wide as scope only taller because of the cinematography used.



My personal like at 4k home theater would be 2.0 X screen height for all content CIH and IMAX at 1.5 X SH.



Not everyone can do this type of presentation and if you have frequent guests you may find their like for immersion may not be the same as yours. No difference when you used to go to a real theater and talk about what row everyone liked best. A compromise was always made so you could all sit in the same row. Similar is often done with image size selection for HT. Because I like fairly high immersion and often watch alone at home I went with a stealth screen wall and a method similar to what you are doing where I can adjust my immersion to suit.



I would much prefer immersion be talked about in terms of height rather than angle and the THX spec is assuming CIH I believe.

 

i agree that the THX standard seems conservative, especially for home theater setups. I usually go for a 50 to 55-degree viewing angle with my 120-inch screen. It feels immersive without being overwhelming. It’s all about finding that sweet spot where the screen fills your field of view without causing discomfort.

 

We have about a 40 degree viewing angle. 10" of diagonal for each foot of viewing distance. This is a very common viewing angle for a lot of people, though some go to 12" per foot of viewing distance which gives a 47 degree viewing angle. In a poll I did a while ago, most people were in this range. Some went a bit smaller, a several went larger, but the overwhelming majority were right between 10" to 12" of diagonal per foot of viewing distance.

 

Is this based on a CIH or CIW method of presentation?

 

It is almost a certainty that if you size a 16:9 screen to what is a comfortable size for watching 1.85:1 movies or 16:9 TV content then watching 2.39:1 scope movies are going to feel under-whelming. Likewise if you size for your preferred immersion for scope then 16:9 content will feel overwhelming.



So without variable presentation some compromise has to be made.

I have solved the PITA problem with manual projectors and variable sizing in two different ways. The easiest is with digital scaling. The other method I had great success with was mounting the projector to a DIY inclined slide. Doing this the projector never needed to be adjusted the slide provided the zoom the incline the shift and the focus remained correct. The scaling method has the downside of loss in resolution but my thoughts are that pixel density and unit brightness remain constant and if they are good enough for IMAX and scope then they will be the same for all other lesser sizes.

 

Agree with others that about 50 degrees on a 16:9 screen seems like the sweet spot. For me, I want to be as immersed as possible without having to swivel my head or eyes to watch everything important happening on the screen, and about 50 degrees is that sweetspot for me.

 

I was at 56° for scope but recently I decided to try sitting closer and now at 63.5° for scope I'm blown away how much more immersive everything is.
That makes it 50° for 16:9.
I could move a bit closer maybe but I feel this is a safe max spot so I don't have to actually turn my head to see the edges of the screen.
I cannot go back to a smaller angle now 😊👍

 

This is like calculating whether you enjoy broccoli or not. You have to try it and see if you like it. All the guidelines are just preferences with some consensus, and one's own preference may or may not match that of others. If you go by another's recommendation, you may end up too small and be underwhelmingly disappointed, or if too large, you may need to supply a baggie at each seat.

 

49

 

67-68º is my final most immersive viewing angle for my SCOPE screen that is.

 

I sit recline on my shaker tr bed with my toes practically touching my at screen.
Screen is 400cm wide by 185cm height.
I use the shaker bed tr to help fix my back problems everything the intense bass hits it help my back twinges.

 

I'm also an immersion junkie. 60-65° is my preferred fov on my 120" screen.

I've recently purchased a pair of xreal one pro AR glasses...they offer a maximum fov of 57°. I use the ( 171" size × 4m distance) simulation for scope and the (162" size x4m distance) simulation for 16:9 content. That perspective quite satisfactory for me.

They are great for what they are!
They really offer a viewing experience very similar to a normal public theatre's middle seat from the middle row.
I really recommend them.