Resolution vs. seating distance

[BMXTRIX]

I've a question, I'm going to guess that once you move up to a projector with like a 100" + screen viewing distance gets a lot more loosely ruled than with an actual TV?

I would say that generally speaking, the smaller displays are far more loosely 'ruled' (if such a term could be used) because daily watchers are entirely personal preference, while front projection and home theater is almost always put together to recreate the movie theater experience.

This means that most people building a front projection setup are trying to get the fully immersive experience which they encounter at their local theater.

On the other hand, because the screens are so much larger with front projection (generally), you get a lot more leeway in viewing distance. That is, a 100" screen is twice as wide, so a variance of a few feet holds half the impact that it would for a 50" screen.

Yet, I still tend to find that most people go smaller than appropriate when they set up front projection in their homes. Often picking the screen size based upon a wild guess instead of comparison to their local cinema, where they like to sit, and the general THX rules.

Generally I suggest that if you are sitting at about 12', your screen size should be right around 110" diagonal with a 1080p display and a rule to almost exclusively watch HD source material.

 

[KLR]

Resolution/Viewing distance

Thanks to all for the comments on this subject. After reading a few posts about immersion in a movie theater-like experience I did move up to 7 feet and watch an action filled DVD and yes, it was more like really being part of the story, but uncomfortable for the eyes. Maybe I should have made some popcorn so the taste receptors' pleasure would have mitigated the eyestrain discomfort.

As for better resolution, even though the TV upconverts the source to 1080P, I couldn't tell that the resolution was better at 7 feet than at 12 ft, though the visual perception of an object changes with a change in distance. When I get a HD DVD player and see a program in all it's glory, the improvement might persuade me to move in closer. I have Comcast Cable with many HD channels, but few programs other than some with good studio lighting and camera technique provide what HD is capable of being. I wonder what is the resolution of the film or magnetic tape on which many of the programs were recorded. It seems to me that if the recording medium is not equivalent to HD, even if transmitted through a HD station to a HD TV, the viewer won't see a HD image of the actual program.

I have concluded that viewing distance differences of a few feet can have an effect on the personal relationship of the viewer's emotion with the story, but little effect on the viewer's perception of image resolution; ie, perception of very tiny detail so small that the human eye can only resolve it at close range unless the viewer's attention is focused on looking for minute image detail rather than being focused on the program.

Regards to all.

 

[jostenmeat]

Interesting post, KLR. Firstly, upconverting just ain't the same thing as having the native resolution. Of course, how well anything is mastered is even more important, perhaps.

By using tRiXtA's graph, for instance, I know that I am past the full benefit of 1080p, and by quickly extrapolating, Im pretty sure I'm even past the full benefit of 1440p!

It's still the most ridiculously incredible pic anyone I know has ever personally seen. I've been in a few PJ setups at AV stores, and even those don't come close, in the slightest. I believe it must be directly tied in to the amount of light control I have, as well as the simple fact that projectors have made insane strides in the last two years, coupled with falling costs. It must be said that the only two sources hooked up are both natively HD, being Bluray and HD-DVD.

IOW, I'm not watching to count how many hairs there are on a fur jacket. I'm in it for the movie experience. The best part is that it blows the movie theater away!!!

I'd try a bluray player with a decent transfer. THEN try it at 7 ft, or even closer than that. Totally different experience.

Is your display a 2000, 2020, 3000, XBR2?

 

[ThA tRiXtA]

The best part is that it blows the movie theater away!!!

Ideally I think that's what we are all striving for!

 

[KLR]

Resolution/Viewing distance

jostenmeat asked "Is your display a 2000, 2020, 3000, XBR2?"

It's a Sony 50" SXRD KDS 50A2020 rear projection (Sony's version of liquid crystal on silicon) with HDMI connection from cable to the receiver and HDMI from receiver to the TV.

I think it's too bad that the public got enthralled with thin displays that made the TV manufacturers give up on rear projection, especially LCOS which can be viewed at very close range with nothing to mar a silky smooth image. For really big screens, rear projection microdisplay TVs can be made cheaper than plasmas or LCDs.

Of course I might be biased because about 10 years ago I got interested in a little company that was doing R&D on an LCOS microdisplay for HDTV and was on it's way to great success with LG it's main customer and some experts saying it's microdisplay beat Sony's, then the marketing gurus at LG decided that thin was in, and rear projection was out, so after selling some TVs in Australia, they cancelled distribution plans to the US and then cancelled the RP product line. Sony later also gave up on rear projection despite the success of its SXRD line.

__________________