screen size for ht room

[ciotime]

My room is 14x21. There are 2 rows of seats with the front row about 11.5 feet away from the projector screen. I had wanted to get a 106" 16:9 screen but someone told me that its gonna be too big for that distance. He suggested I get a 92" or 100" instead. Which one should I get? By the way Im gonna be using an Infocus IN76.

 

[Bryce_H]

Maybe just a touch. I have a 15'6" X 23' room and my first row is about 14.5 feet back. I have a 106" 16:9 and it is fine. I am using a Epson 550.

 

[ehurnie]

I have a 110" screen and my seating distance is about 16ft away. At first it is a lot to take in but my roomates and are now used to it. I'll take a look tonight at about 12 ft and let you know what I think.

 

[wilkenboy]

Ciotime -

The "right" size of the screen is related to the projo mounting distance, the projo light output, your seating distance, the ambient light in the room, and the type of screen you are planning on using. Go to www.projectorcentral.com and use their advanced projector calculator - you should be able to plug in your make/model.

In general:
1) Seating should be at least 1.5x the width of your screen away from the screen. Sitting closer than this you will notice compression artifacts and other little nasties in the signal or projector performance.
2) Don't push a projo beyond its ability to put light on the screen (making the screen too big vs. lumens for your ambient light conditions) - this will make the colors washed out and disappointing.

My recommendation: determine seating distance based on room layout. Divide by 1.5 to get your screen width. Go to projector central, plug in the screen size and gain, and have the calculator determine the projector mounting location.

Hope this helps.

~Josh

 

[BMXTRIX]

I know the 106" works with most any projector these days if you have unlimited projector placement options... 11.5' = 138" which is about a 92" wide screen (138"x.66) which equates to 106" diagonal.

Seems perfect to me and I wouldn't go any smaller at all, especially if you have a second row of seating.

I usually go a bit smaller than .66 times the seating distance if there is only one row of seating as if there is overflow, usually they are sitting closer to the screen. But, you have extra seating behind the first row which means you really should be optomizing for the main seating location, which is the front row.

If you were primarily going to be sitting in the second row, then I might even suggest going a tiny bit bigger - 110"/114" so that those who choose to sit up front have even a bigger screen to enjoy. But, I see that more as personal preference over requirement.

 

[Reorx]

My screen is a 4:3, 8' across, which I believe ends up being about 120" diag.
My front row is about 12-14 feet away.

1.5x screen width seems to be the ideal distance, from what I've seen.

 

[df4801]

I sit 15' from a 100" screen.
It all depends what you like.
In your situation, I would prefer 100".
But what you can do is get the pj first and hold off on the screen.
Project on the wall first and see what size you like best. Then order the screen.
Just remeber, that in general.... the closer you sit and the bigger the screen, the more artifacts you will see. Especially with a low-middle end pj.

 

[BMXTRIX]

Artifacts are more a function of the source you are feeding the projector. While cheap projectors are more prone to have poor processing on board for 480i material, if you feed the projector HD discs, HD cable/sat, and DVD using a decent upconverting DVD player (Panasonic S97), then the projector will show basically no artifacts.

This can't be drilled home enough. The reviews are consistent that put cheap 720p projectors head-to-head with far more expensive models and the cheap ones don't just stack up, they sometimes outperform the more expensive competition. It's truly mind blowing how good, for how cheap, these things have become.

As for viewing distance, it IS all personal preference, but the THX standards, which movie theaters use, is not 'someones opinion'. It is the research of THX behind it which came up with that number as ideal and comfortable for viewing. Some people like to sit closer than the middle of the theater, others like being further towards the back... But, most like the middle of the theater.

Great idea to get the projector first and try it out at a few different sizes to see what you like most before getting a screen - IF the room allows for it.

 

[Johnd]

I'm with BMXTRIX. I would not go any larger, or you'll be swinging your head like a whooping crane to catch all the action and "artifacts." THX and more specifically, Projector Central has set guidelines for this very reason. I am about 11'6" from my 80" screen, and I would not go any larger.

 

[df4801]

As long as everyone wants to mention THX,

106" is over THX standards for 11.5' viewing distance. The max works out to about 102".

 

[Johnd]

Yes, df...and that is the max. Their recommendation is to not surpass that limit (for comfortable viewing). Cheers.

 

[BMXTRIX]

It's not 'max' it is RECOMMENDED. 102.9" is the recommended viewing distance if primarly seating is exactly 11.5 feet.

http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

But, there is not ONE row of seating, there are two rows and the people in the second row also need to be considered, not ignored. Given the 102.9" screen size falling between 100" and 106" and the main seats actually being the first of two rows of seating, I would recommend the slightly larger screen size. Either way, is very close, but the second row suffers when the screen size goes down.

As said: Always personal preference!

 

[Johnd]

102.9" is the recommended viewing distance if primarly seating is exactly 11.5 feet.

I think you meant "102.9" is the recommended screen size"...and for thx standards, that is at a 36 degree viewing angle.

However, the common suggestion is always "to go larger." Source determines pq. Viewing distance is calculated as coefficient of resolution and "fill." Lumens determine how much screen you can fill. etc., etc., etc.

My simple comment, as df recommended, is to sample first on a blank wall, so that you don't end up applying those black vertical bands on a screen that is too large. The 1.5 rule is out the window with hd. Some are using a 0.8 or 0.9 multiplier for screen size to viewing distance. Try it first, or you may find yourself throwing your neck out attempting to catch all the action.

 

[wilkenboy]

I would call BS on the artifacting thing getting eliminated with certain processors Watch a SD channel on a screen that big. I don't care what processing you're using - the compression is there.

Another way to do this it take a smaller screen and use the "zoom" function on a DVD player- its just not a good thing to blow a compressed lower resolution signal up to certain sizes.

My opinion from observing a lot of mid range to high end gear - DVDs, when blown up enough, look like crap regardless of the scaler / deinterlacer used.

~Josh

 

[BMXTRIX]

I think you meant "102.9" is the recommended screen size"...and for thx standards, that is at a 36 degree viewing angle.

However, the common suggestion is always "to go larger." Source determines pq. Viewing distance is calculated as coefficient of resolution and "fill." Lumens determine how much screen you can fill. etc., etc., etc.

My simple comment, as df recommended, is to sample first on a blank wall, so that you don't end up applying those black vertical bands on a screen that is too large. The 1.5 rule is out the window with hd. Some are using a 0.8 or 0.9 multiplier for screen size to viewing distance. Try it first, or you may find yourself throwing your neck out attempting to catch all the action.

Yes, thanks for the wording correction on my part - but you are not correct on the seating distance standards.

SMPTE and THX have recommended viewing distances that are NOT based on visual acquity, like you are saying, but actually are based upon the human eye and brain, and what is comfortable for the average viewer to see. When you get much closer than about 1.54x screen width your brain and eyes have trouble brining in all the data the is being put up on screen because the field of view is to large. This causes people to look around from side to side during the film which can cause fatigue, and even headaches for some people.

Yes, I agree, try it first if possible. But, if NOT possible, then use the scientifically based guidelines based on human vision, not on visual acquity.

NOTE: The link I provided also can show the numbers for visual acquity viewing distance.

.9 times screen width for HD is not accurate for a fully resolved image. Sound & Vision just had a couple of articles on it and had charts showing exactly what resolutions for what distances work properly for fully resolved visual acquity images. 720p at 1.5x width actually can be detected by a person with 20:20 vision and requires you to move back a bit. 1080p source, AND display, allows you to move a bit closer than 1.5x screen width.

Though, I will admit that I could float a few inches either way of 1.5x screen width at home without many issues.

I do agree that screen size can be limited by lumen output which is a huge issue with really big home theaters.

 

[Johnd]

Yes, BMXTRIX, I agree with most of what you say. I was really not commenting on the calculus of screen sizing (viewing angle, resolution, lumens, etc.). My simple comment, again, is the individual comfortableness of screen size to viewing distance ratio.

While some sit front and center at a movie theatre, or even 5-10 rows back, and love the experience of the screen "filling" their entire field of vision...others simply cannot stand it. It is taxing on their eyes, brain, and ultimately, their neck. Most people prefer to sit in the middle of the theater, if not the back.

My comment to ciotime, again, is ascertain what ratio he is comfortable with prior to purchase, so that he does not have to install the vertical bands to downsize an overly large screen. It is not that difficult to purchase the screen last, and do a quick audition on a wall for sizing purposes. Most everyone seems to say "bigger", and I'm suggesting that he size it first for comfortableness (as df said). Bigger is not always better, and their is an appropriate screen size for every ht:
1) one that is recommended by thx, pc, and the various formulas, all of which ought to be considered prior to the purchase of a screen; and,
2) that size that the viewer is comfortable with.

That's all. Cheers.

 

[ciotime]

How about if I get the 100" instead?

 

[BMXTRIX]

How about if I get the 100" instead?

How about you decide at this point?

100" puts the size for the second row MUCH under recommended size and it puts it under recommended size for the front row. So, unless you are adding a third row even closer or people will regularly be sitting in front of the front row, then you will be under THX recommended size.

Get the projector FIRST, then project onto your wall, then decide - you have the facts.