Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Screen size -- how big is too big ?

I'm probably just starting to discover what the movie industry has known for years, but here goes...

My screen right now is a 4x8 piece of matte white Formica, which is working surprisingly well. This allows roughly 104" diagonal on 2.35:1 movies (96x41) and 97" diagonal on 16:9 movies (85x48). Viewing distance is about 12 feet, just far enough that I don't see any screen door effect unless move closer.

When I watch films with fast action at 16:9 I seem to "lose the picture", ie I feel like there is too much happening for me to keep an eye on everything. Oddly enough, when watching a 2.35:1 movie with slightly higher magnification and larger diagonal (104" vs. 97") I have no such problem.

I used to think that going with a 2.35:1 screen would mean I would lose the ability to have a "nice sized" image when watching 16:9 movies, but it is now starting to appear that the larger 16:9 image may be too big for my eyes and brain anyways.

Has anyone else noticed this effect ? I did a casual search on the net for information but it was kinda late so it wasn't a very intensive search.

This is, regrettably, another small step towards a 2.35:1 CH arrangement. Help, I'm slipping down the slope...

I read somewhere that 3 times diagonal is the optimal viewing distance. Maybe you are too close?

Edit: 3x for SD, 2X for HD, minimums. 5X maximum. Based on 20/20 vision.

Maybe I'm too far away!

You have normal human eyes, if you ask me. You are noticing on the 16:9 that there is more vertical image than your eyes are used to "processing". Human eyes tend to focus on a single vertical point, but are used to having left and right peripheral vision. That is why a wider image seems less straining than a taller image.

I have a 104" 16:9 screen that I was watching from 12 feet, and I was OK with it, but mostly because my movies are in a wider format than that. Now that I am in my new room with about a 14' viewing distance, 16:9 material seems better on the eyes.

If I was doing it all over again, I would go with a wider format screen and lose a little 16:9 image size.

For my setup 2.35 movies take up my entire screen which is 51" x 120" (2.35 AR). In the front row fast action movies can sometimes be overwhelming. Similar to sitting in the front row at theaters or lower rows at IMAX, it sucks.

Anyway, I have found my second row of seating more comfortable for those types of movies, which is about 15ft or so back. Chick Flicks are usually ok from the front row on 2.35 movies.

For 1.85 AR DVD's I change the lens to "pass through" mode which displays the native image and uses 51" x 94" of my screen. Either row works for that scenario...

John:
Did you ever consider a 27" CRT? Oh, wait... never mind....

LOL! Boy! You're getting off some good ones lately, Mark (see "hookahs" and "hoes" )

Thanks, everyone. Guess I'm going to get out the knife and trim this to 41x96 for a 2.35 screen. I was hoping to avoid all that zooming and panning when I went from 16:9 to 2.35:1, but I'm finding I need to adjust anyways because I like having the 2.35 movies at the top of the 4x8 panel rather than in the middle of the 16:9 projector pattern.

BTW I saw a neat border treatment on avsforums a couple of days ago -- I originally planned to have a pine border to match the rest of the trim in the house but black borders do so much more for the image quality. This guy had a 6" black border around the screen, with a 2-3" border on top of that. The result was a ~3" black border but the screen still looked like it really fit the room.

Who am I kidding ? I'm probably going to put a strip of black hockey tape around the screen

EDIT: interesting link : http://home1.gte.net/res18h39/thxscope.gif

Looks like my 12' viewing distance is pretty much optimal for a 96" wide 2.35 screen.

Also noticed that a couple of folks referred to this as 2.39 rather than 2.35. Turns out that around 1970 the standard went from 2.35 to 2.39, ie Randy's screen is an inch too high for modern movies but that can be fixed with a black marker

Also, the optimal distance for Randy's 120" wide screen seems to be 15.4 feet, so the second row should be ideal.

I wonder whether the anamorphic lenses stretch 16:9 to 2.35 or 2.39 ?

Hmmm. That diagram shows that I should have about a 120" diagonal 2.35:1 screen... Of course that means that I would have to chuck my $660 Carada 16:9 Brilliant White screen and get a new $744 Carada 2.35:1 High Contrast Grey screen. Oh, and then a $1200 anamorphic lens to really get some good use out of my projector... I don't think that I have the extra $2000 to change it out now...

Oh, for the Prismasonic H600M Anamorphic Lens that Randy has, the web site claims that it will take a 16:9 and go to a 21:9 (2.333333:1) so that would be a neither of your numbers (2.35:1 or 2.39:1)

I have many movies that have wider AR's than 2.35 John. Yes, at least the Prismasonic allows me to stretch to work with those as well. The units have "stops" which are basically little allen head screws that you can adjust for "pass through" and "stretch" modes so when you turn the knobs, they stop where you want them. So basically I have them set for the widest movie I have, and then just don't turn the knobs as far for 2.35 material.

Huh ? Are you saying you can do a "variable stretch" ? I had no idea... thought all you could do was have the lens "in" or "out".

This is sounding better all the time !!