MarkTecher, on 09 March 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:
This thread is a perfect example of why the finding the screen height based on room length first (and not seating distance first) is the way to go. The OP wants to know how big a screen he can have from a 4m viewing distance and people are providing examples based on thier personal preferences which may or may not suit the OP.
The place to start is knowing how big the room is first so we can work out how large the screen is, then find the seating distance based on that. If you work reverse, it is guess work as this thread is proving. If you were to base the screen height on say a 15 degree vertical viewing angle, you get a max of 1072mm for 4m and I personally think that is an undersize if your room is 6m deep.
OP: How big is the room we are dealing with?
seatonrocks, on 09 March 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:
The OP has said he wants a screen size based on seating at 3.5 to 4m.
So going by your post if he happens to have a room 8m x 5m he should fit a screen relative to that size room, which I would imagine would be huge and totally unpleasant to view from 3.5m away.
So now it's room size not seating distance that dictates screen size? Pretty much the opposite of the advice you've given in the past.
seatonrocks, on 11 March 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:
When someone disagrees with you or criticisers you, why do you cry out "personal attack" ? Clearly this was not a personal attack on you, it was pointing out a clear fact that you have said things in the past such as..........
The best way to find the ideal seating location is to use the screen height, not the width. All of the calculators are based on width for 16:9, yet they all seem to want to share THX's 36 degrees. Infact THX's latest method is to take the screen width and divide it by 0.728 - ie 2400mm / 0.728 = 3297mm and that is fine as I will explain soon...
SMPTE stands for the Society of Motion Pitcures and Television Engineers. and have always worked off the height. And it makes perfect sense if the 1 in the X:1 ratio is always the screen height.
There recommendations are much simplier than anything else around where the absolute closest is 2x and the fartherest is 4x the screen height - again regardless of aspect ratio. This is based on the fact that we are more sensitive to tall picture than a wide picture - our eyes can track horizontally much easier then vertically.
You said that in a post 3 years ago. I could quite easily find many more but really, it's beautiful outside and surfing waves appeals much more than surfing for contradictory Techer posts, as simple and as plentiful as they are to find.
Seeing as the OP in this thread had already said what his seating distance was, the information required was what size screen/projector was recommended. SMPTE figures as quoted by you give a distance of between 2 and 4 times distance back from the screen height. OP wants to sit at 4m, that would make a screen height of approx. 1.33m regardless of AR and is worked out on the basis that 3 x the screen height back from screen is ideal (SMPTE as quoted by you say between 2-4, so 3 would be ideal, yes?).
Room length is irrelevant and to emphasize this point here is a post from a respected forum member who sells screens for a living telling you as much...........
Yes you are right there Rod, the room length has no bearing on the screen size.
This should be replaced with distance of eyes from screen.
Some rooms will be 6 metres deep but people have their seats at different distances.
My eyes are at roughly 5.3 metres from the screen. Others will prefer anything from 3 to 5.5 metres.
Some rooms will be dual purpose rooms, say 10 metres deep, but the cinema seats may be 3.2 from the screen.
I am given room sizes all the time, I bypass that at the beginning and ask how far back your eyes
are going to be from the screen (the room could be 15 metres deep but this makes no impact on screen size unless their
seats are at the very back of the room, unlikely), then take into account the projector resolution, closest seating position
(rows of seats, if any), light output from projector (no point having a massive screen if it lacks lumens)
and a few other little tricks. Can usually get it near perfect without any formulas.
That is from Oztheatre, but i guess you already knew that. Read it closely and note it is distance from eyes to screen that is relevant, your room size theory is blown out of the water pretty much every time, and hence why over the years you have numerous times recommended the SMPTE or THX figures for ideal seating locations, conveniently not mentioning your room size theory because it is flawed.
Not a personal attack bud, just pointing out facts.
seatonrocks, on 11 March 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:
More..........
I give up Mark.
Room length has nothing to do with screen size. Seating distance, your front wall size, WAF and preferred viewing angles do. Your room can be 100m long and it will HAVE NOT EFFECT on what you want to do with wear you sit with the projecting wall. I am not arguing against SMPTE viewing angle recommendations indeed they should be used when calculating screen size, particularly the viewing angel recommendations - which are once again not affected by how long your room is rather it is affected by where you are sitting and the size of the screen.
I think you need to get out of the books and think about what it is you are saying. I have already given you a ridiculous room length of 20m and you have provided a nice healthy (and rather equally ridiculous) screen height of 5.xm.
Now if that doesn't make someone realise that room length has nothing to do with your preferred viewing size (and distance) does I don't know what will.
Its quite simple - you have a preferred seating distance and a prefered viewing angle. This puts people into your 2x to 4x screen zone quite nicely which is good advice. Advice actually that could be USED OUTSIDE! style_emoticons/default/smile.gif
Taken from the same thread as the earlier ones at the following
http://www.dtvforum....opic=62461&st=0MRCRIST, on 11 March 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:
You really need a reality check.
You come on this forum as a "Johnny come lately" and attempt to undermine one our senior members who has been most helpful to a lot of us in the past and still is in the present.
If you can't remember or recall what you wrote I suggest you look above .
Mark's "sticky" on multichannel calibration was informative and most helpful to a vast number of new members at the time including myself.
I even called Mark on several occasions for assistance and advice while I was calibrating my room several years ago. Mark was most helpful and this is about all my involvement with Mark.
You see I am not a fanboy as you have labelled me but rather someone who respects a person for performing a good deed on more than one occasion.
I do not dislike you...I don't know who you are. But when someone comes on this forum an attempts to belittle someone who has helped me I will defend that person full stop.
My attempt to fire back some missiles by having a go at the Collingwood Football club and stereotyping their supporters I admit was ordinary.
So now we are getting down to the real issue, the real issue all along in your mind is that i'm a "Johnny come lately", therefore i don't have the right to question a senior member giving out advice that has been proved wrong in the past. And also the said senior member has helped a lot of people in the past, therefore according to you he can say anything whether right or wrong or misleading and no-one is allowed to dispute it. Oh, hang on, i mean little, inexperienced, johnny come lately members can't dispute him, correct? And to think some of you guys think it would be a good idea to let some senior members have certain mod powers, if only to suspend someone for 24-48 hrs, wow wouldn't that be awesome if you had that kind of power Crist, you could have suspended me and deleted my post too. Stuff freedom of speech, lets just hear what we want to hear.
I've quoted above what i posted, there's no malice, no undermining, just the cold hard facts relative to the advice asked for in THIS THREAD. I suggest YOU go back and read them, and try to understand what is being discussed as you clearly don't, especially the very first post, and also note that not too many people are running in to defend a Senior member who is supposedly being undermined and belittled by a "Johnny come lately".
Can i ask, what the hell has "Mark's "sticky" on
multichannel calibration" got to do with anything? This thread is about seating distance from screen, not
multichannel calibration. So this is the extent of things, along with the johnny come lately remark of course, because "Mark helped me therefore i will defend him even though i have no friggin' idea what i am talking about".
So to sum up, your contribution to this thread has been zero advice given to the OP and subject matter (probably because you have no idea, obviously), one or two Collingwood jokes/ridiculing, and now telling me i have no right to question a Snr member because i'm a "Johnny come lately" and Mark has helped you in the past.
That's really good Crist, you can feel proud of that.
Whilst deciphering this post you may like to also mull over the fact that hey, post count high or low, Snr member or not, there are many informed HT enthusiasts out in the real world. Some of us "Johnny come latelys" have even had front projection and surround sound systems for 2 decades.
No Crist i don't require the reality check, but i know who does.
Grow up.
0
must barrack for the pies 
. PS Bucks has no idea what he is doing 
. Fancy getting smashed by the Crows
102" and that's a squeeze due to width limitation. 
