# Poll on 2.35 Viewing Distances?



## millerwill

Has there yet been a poll of the viewing distances (or viewing angles) that people use with their 2.35 screens? I have read all the info I could find in this forum, and know there is a great deal of personal preference involved, but it would be useful to know what the distribution of preferences is. (E.g., some people seem to think the THX 'recommended' viewing angle is 36 deg, while in fact for 2.35 screen it seems to be more like 53 deg.)


The reason I ask is because I'm considering going for a 2.35/2.40 setup. I was also surprised when looking at Alan Gouger's 'picture gallery' (in the second 'sticky' above) of HT's: I saw many elaborate theater-looking rooms, but in most cases the screen sizes seemed quite modest (e.g., smaller in width than my 16x9 screen). I thought the big deal with CH was the expansive breath of the pic and the immersive feeling one got from it. I thus thought that most people would be going for viewing distances of ~ 1 to 1.2 SW (screen widths), i.e., viewing angles from 42 to 53 degrees, rather than 1.5 SW and ~ 36 deg angles that are popular with 16x9 screens.


Seems like it would be useful to hear what a variety of people prefer.


Oops! I meant to post this in the CIH forum! How can I move it to there?


----------



## peteer01




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/15137035
> 
> 
> (E.g., some people seem to think the THX 'recommended' viewing angle is 36 deg, while in fact for 2.35 screen it seems to be more like 53 deg.)



Hopefully a mod will help you move it, but I believe the THX 36 degree angle spec is supposed to be the _minimum_ viewing angle.


----------



## cal87

2-3X screen HEIGHT is the general rule of thumb.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *peteer01* /forum/post/15138330
> 
> 
> I believe the THX 36 degree angle spec is supposed to be the _minimum_ viewing angle.



This is also my understanding.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cal87* /forum/post/15138800
> 
> 
> 2-3X screen HEIGHT is the general rule of thumb.



But this covers an enormous range: e.g., from a 100" to 150" wide screen.


----------



## John Ballentine

My personal experiences/preferences:


I recently viewed (at CES, CEDIA and EHX) an RS2 (w/Panamorph UH480) on a 132" wide x 56" high 2:35 screen. Source was BD via PS3. Viewing angle was 50 degrees at my viewing distance of 12 feet (I brought a tape measure).


The result was nothing less than Breathtaking (reason I’m going CIH). I usually prefer sitting more to the rear of commercial cinemas. However I had no desire to back up. Extremely immersive experience. CIH makes a HUGE difference in viewing scope material. It really is Amazing and I fully understand the passion CIH guys feel for there viewing experience.


However I went with 120" wide x 50" high 2:40 screen at my viewing distance of 14 feet w/ viewing angle of approx 40 degrees. Reason being I watch a lot of SD DVD’s. Which only have 404 vertical lines - vs: BD w/ 817. I just feel (maybe I’m wrong) that I need a little more distance between me and the screen when watching SD DVD’s due to their lower resolution. (Trying to compromise between SD DVD and BD). if I were exclusively viewing BD's - I would definitely have purchased a larger screen.


----------



## imprez25

I'm currently sitting at roughly 150" back from a 111" wide 2.4:1 screen. This is a little too close at 1.35x. But the look and feel of the picture is quite amazing! I am thinking of doing the unthinkable and reducing my screen size simply due to my image brightness and visable pixilation when wathing sd-dvd's.


----------



## CAVX

The so called 36 degree rule for THX is actually for a CinemaScope 2.39:1 screen found by either multipling the width of the screen by 1.54 or multipling the height of the scren by 3.68.


I think it is easier to use the height as that never changes regardless of AR (1.33:1 - 2.37:1) where I is the height.


SMPTE have a number of seating distances found by multiplinjg the hight by a number and where 2x the image hiehgt is the min you would want to sit, 3x is preferred and 4x is the farthest. Therefore anywhere in between 2x and 4x is fine...


Mark


----------



## millerwill

Thank you guys for the comments!


John B: So you are getting a shorter 2.35 screen than your previous 16x9. I'm hoping not to do that, but will have to experiment when I get back home, and when the RS20 arrives (been away for the last 3 months on sabbatical). My present 16x9 is 110x61, sitting ~ 12 ft away, i.e., ~1.3 SW (I like the big pic up close; as a kid, I always sat on the front row every Sat morning to see the newest Superman serial before the Roy Rogers movie!) But a 61" H 2.35 screen would be 144" W, and I'll have to see if my 150" wide available wall space can handle that; might have to draw back to 136" W (and 58" H) or something, but I'll find out.


imprez25: I guess I just like to sit closer than you, but that just shows that there is a great deal of personal preference in all this.


CAVX: The 36 deg viewing angle is the MINIMUM recommended value by THX, and the max rec value is 53 (= 1.0 SW viewing distance) which is right where I would be if I did indeed go with a 144" wide screen. At least this suggests that I shouldn't go BIGGER, which of course my room wouldn't allow anyway.


----------



## imprez25

millerwill- I think it is a limitation of my setup and not my specific preference. I would like to be able to sit closer, but at my current distance I see alot of flaws in the image, namely pixilation. I just purchased my first lcd projector, a Sanyo z60, about two weeks ago, so this is my first crack at CIH.


----------



## cal87

Bill, I think you will be fine from your seating position and a 12ft wide CIH screen, from what I remember of your room. I am not sure if you would be able to do it with the projector zoom, given your short throw. If you go with an anamorphic lens, you will probably be dealing with some pretty noticable pincushion with the short throw and flat screen.


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/15139763
> 
> 
> John B: So you are getting a shorter 2.35 screen than your previous 16x9. I'm hoping not to do that, but will have to experiment when I get back home, and when the RS20 arrives (been away for the last 3 months on sabbatical).



No. My current 16X9 screen is 50" high - and my new scope screen is 50" high. They are the same height. The main difference is in the width. Current 16X9 screen is 91" wide - new scope screen is 120" wide. 2:40 image on my current 16X9 screen is 3,458 sq inches. New scope screen is 6,000 sq inches! Quite a difference considering they are the same height.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/15140498
> 
> 
> No. My current 16X9 screen is 50" high - and my new scope screen is 50" high. They are the same height. The main difference is in the width. Current 16X9 screen is 91" wide - new scope screen is 120" wide. 2:40 image on my current 16X9 screen is 3,458 sq inches. New scope screen is 6,000 sq inches! Quite a difference considering they are the same height.



Oops, sorry about that! I think I picked up on the #'s re the screen you saw. So you've done what I would like to do, i.e., keep the ht of your new 2.35 screen the same as your old 16x9--nice!


----------



## Art Sonneborn

My preference is 2x height (SMPTE minimum) for my front row.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cal87* /forum/post/15140321
> 
> 
> Bill, I think you will be fine from your seating position and a 12ft wide CIH screen, from what I remember of your room. I am not sure if you would be able to do it with the projector zoom, given your short throw. If you go with an anamorphic lens, you will probably be dealing with some pretty noticable pincushion with the short throw and flat screen.



Wow, you've got a good memory and eye for distance! Yes, I couldn't zoom to a 144" W pic from where the projector is at present, but it's possible (I believe, will have to verify when I get back home) that I can arrange to have it in the closet right behind our recliners (you may not have even noticed it, has folding doors). I think this will work well: the exhaust of the RS20 is on the correct side for this arrangement, as is even the offset of the lens from the center; and it will make noise from the pj, which I don't think would be a problem in any event, not existent.


This would put the lens ~ 210" from the screen, and the min throw distance for a 144" screen is 197", so this is just fine. When I zoom back down for a 16x9 pic, the throw ratio will be ~ 2.0; so I would be giving up a bit of brightness, but I don't think this would be a problem for the RS20. (And I would also be getting another Dalite HP!)


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/15140580
> 
> 
> My preference is 2x height (SMPTE minimum) for my front row.



Ah, I miss-interpreted some of your earlier comments being that you were at the THX min, 1 SW (2.39 H, 53 deg). I think you're the only person I seen report liking it closer than I do; so your viewing angle is ~ 62 deg! But maybe it's just because I haven't had the chance to try this out.


----------



## TSHA222

Well I sit minimum of about 20 feet back from a 16 foot wide screen. I went with the biggest scope screen I could fit in my room (which was previously an indoor pool). My only complaint is that if I sit in the row that I initially planned to be the "money seats", I can discern a bit of pixel structure on bright objects, but if I sit one row back, the pixel structure disappears. I have a 720p 3 chip DLP. When I upgrade to a 1080p model, that problem will be solved.











Chris White


My theater is pictured in the thread that the OP mentioned. Since Alan posted it, I have switched to a newer model DLP projector (still 720p) and added an ISCO III (as well as adding HD-DVD and Blu-ray). For my brightness requirements, I had to go with a 3 chip DLP and due to the price, I could only afford 720p at the time.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TSHA222* /forum/post/15140691
> 
> 
> Well I sit minimum of about 20 feet back from a 16 foot wide screen. I went with the biggest scope screen I could fit in my room (which was previously an indoor pool). My only complaint is that if I sit in the row that I initially planned to be the "money seats", I can discern a bit of pixel structure on bright objects, but if I sit one row back, the pixel structure disappears. I have a 720p 3 chip DLP. When I upgrade to a 1080p model, that problem will be solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris White
> 
> 
> My theater is pictured in the thread that the OP mentioned. Since Alan posted it, I have switched to a newer model DLP projector (still 720p) and added an ISCO III (as well as adding HD-DVD and Blu-ray). For my brightness requirements, I had to go with a 3 chip DLP and due to the price, I could only afford 720p at the time.



Do you think you will sit closer once the 1080p pj is in place?


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/15140580
> 
> 
> My preference is 2x height (SMPTE minimum) for my front row.



Art,

So your first row is 12' from your 14' wide screen?


----------



## Vern Dias

1.1x screen width for me. No visible pixels. 5'x13' curved 2.65:1 screen. Sony Qualia 004. It's perfect for me and the wife. 1.4x screen width to the back row seats.


Vern


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/15141572
> 
> 
> Art,
> 
> So your first row is 12' from your 14' wide screen?



Just under.


Art


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/15141852
> 
> 
> Just under.
> 
> 
> Art



And the front row is your favorite?


----------



## coldmachine

I was at 13ft with a 14ft screen.


Ive just marked out the spot for the money seat for my new theater, and it ended up as 16ft from an 18ft screen.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/15142079
> 
> 
> And the front row is your favorite?




Yes it is !










Art


----------



## millerwill

Thanks, Art. Inspired by you and CM, I'm juiced (as my kids would say) to see if a 12ft screen will really work in my room from my 12 ft viewing distance.


----------



## taffman

I have a 9ft wide scope screen. My first row is at 10ft (1.1 x screen width) and my second row is at 14ft (1.55 x screen width). I am using the zoom method with standard definiton DVD's. Even though there is no SDE in the front row (using the Pannny), I prefer the second row for a stunningly sharp 2.35 picture.


----------



## Ballistix1

Yes, just about to receive my UH480 and 122inch custom 2:37 screen from Carada. I calculate (with a bit of help from a certain Jason..) that 15.5-16feet will be the projector placement and we'll sit at about 12-14 feet from the screen...hope that sounds right..


T


----------



## millerwill

Very interesting to hear about all this variety of setups.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/15143050
> 
> 
> Thanks, Art. Inspired by you and CM, I'm juiced (as my kids would say) to see if a 12ft screen will really work in my room from my 12 ft viewing distance.



All I can say is that it is incredibly engaging. Certain movies with extreme action you tend to lose a little being that close but I watched _Blade Runner_ , _2001 A Space Odyssey_,and _Gattacca_ in the last few weeks and I say you just can't beat it.


Art


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/15139763
> 
> 
> 
> CAVX: The 36 deg viewing angle is the MINIMUM recommended value by THX, and the max rec value is 53 (= 1.0 SW viewing distance) which is right where I would be if I did indeed go with a 144" wide screen. At least this suggests that I shouldn't go BIGGER, which of course my room wouldn't allow anyway.



Actually 26 degrees is their minimum angle (retro fitting older cinemas? where anything longer is a considered a bowling alley) which equates to 5.18x the screen height and 36 degrees or 3.68x the screen height is their preferred angle.


I've noticed that all new cinemas (in the last 10 years) built in the city I live seem to based on the 36 degree rule. That angle is from the centre of the back row to the screen edges...


Mark


----------



## John Ballentine

Reading these posts - and suddenly I feel like my new 10' wide screen is really rather small...


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15143785
> 
> 
> Actually 26 degrees is their minimum angle (retro fitting older cinemas? where anything longer is a considered a bowling alley) which equates to 5.18x the screen height and 36 degrees or 3.68x the screen height is their preferred angle.
> 
> 
> I've noticed that all new cinemas (in the last 10 years) built in the city I live seem to based on the 36 degree rule. That angle is from the centre of the back row to the screen edges...
> 
> 
> Mark



I'm sure you're more experienced in all this than I. But my understanding is that 26 deg is the 'minimum ACCEPTABLE ' viewing angle, and 36 deg the 'minimum RECOMMENDED' value, i.e, the back row in the theater, as you say. But I certainly don't consider the back row as the optimum location. The 'maximum recommended' viewing angle by THX is 53 deg, so the range THX 'recommends' is 36 to 53 deg.


This was all very clearly presented in the diagram for 2.39 screens that Erik Garci presented and has been widely available on the forum. In his diagram, the 53 deg position looks to be about 1/3 of the way back from the front row; the middle row looks to have about a 50 deg viewing angle, and 36 deg is the back row.


And as everyone has said, these THX or SMPTE guidelines are simply that, guidelines. But it is useful to be clear about what they are.


----------



## Vern Dias




> Quote:
> Even though there is no SDE in the front row (using the Pannny), I prefer the second row for a stunningly sharp 2.35 picture.



Stunningly sharp image at reasonably close viewing distance Panny.


Thats the price you pay for Smoothscreen trying to hide the relatively high LCD pixel separation.









Based on some measurements I made, a full 1080 resolution is impossible to achieve on the Panny. HF response (detail) is down at least 3db at 1080 using alternating black and white single pixel wide lines.


Vern


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/15144191
> 
> 
> I'm sure you're more experienced in all this than I. But my understanding is that 26 deg is the 'minimum ACCEPTABLE ' viewing angle, and 36 deg the 'minimum RECOMMENDED' value, i.e, the back row in the theater, as you say. But I certainly don't consider the back row as the optimum location. The 'maximum recommended' viewing angle by THX is 53 deg, so the range THX 'recommends' is 36 to 53 deg.



Agreed, the back row is not the optimum seating position. I generally sit 2/3rds back or in line with the 4th surround speaker (the cinemas I like to go to have 6 surrounds on each wall)...



> Quote:
> This was all very clearly presented in the diagram for 2.39 screens that Erik Garci presented and has been widely available on the forum. In his diagram, the 53 deg position looks to be about 1/3 of the way back from the front row; the middle row looks to have about a 50 deg viewing angle, and 36 deg is the back row.



But there seats behind the red section. Any way53 degrees is fine. At home, I will sit at 2x the image height which equates to 61.8 on Eric's diagram, but I prefer 3x or 43.4 on the diagram. HD on a 1080 is fine, but SD doesn't look so hot at 2x...



> Quote:
> And as everyone has said, these THX or SMPTE guidelines are simply that, guidelines. But it is useful to be clear about what they are.



And the key reason I tend to recommend SMPTE or THX recommendations is that for so many years, home theatre was left to the individual to work out. Why not adopt these recommendations that we know work comercially and remove the guess work at home...


Mark


----------



## millerwill

CAVX: Good post, Mark; I think we are on the same page!


----------



## TSHA222




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/15140773
> 
> 
> Do you think you will sit closer once the 1080p pj is in place?



Well actually, my ideal seats are at 20 feet back so that's where I'll sit. To be honest, it's where I sit now most of the time. I made it sound like the pixel structure is terrible, but it really isn't. Basically, if I look for it, I will see it but if I actually WATCH the movie, all is well. I still want a 1080p one day but I don't feel that I HAVE to have one in order to enjoy my theater right now.


Chris White


----------



## John Ballentine

^^^

When I switched out my 720p projector (Panny AE700) for 1080p (JVC RS1) I was instantly able to move my seated position forward 5.5 feet (from 19 feet to 13.5 feet







).


----------



## tbase1

8' away from my baby 8' scope screen. When I grow up I want to be like Art.


----------



## Art Sonneborn

I'm still a firm believer in the idea of sitting where you like . I found that I set my theater up very similar to my preferred viewing angle at a commercial thater. IMO ,IMAX's entire concept is based on extreme engagement by taking up peripheral vision. As I said before ,some movies you just can't take it all in sitting close but others it is _the_ experience.


Art


----------



## John Ballentine

Yes. The beauty of two (or more) rows of seats gives you the option of sitting where you want for any particular film. I prefer to sit a little further back for the Bourne films because of the camera shake.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/15155155
> 
> 
> Yes. The beauty of two (or more) rows of seats gives you the option of sitting where you want for any particular film. I prefer to sit a little further back for the Bourne films because of the camera shake.



Exactly !


Art


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/15137035
> 
> 
> I'm considering going for a 2.35/2.40 setup.



Don't consider. DO! INSIST! The ONLY way to watch movies!


My actual screen surface is 54" high and we sit at what I'd consider "as close as is comfortable" i.e. around 10 feet, close to 2x screen height.


Great!!!!!


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I'm waiting for my new 112" wide (47" high?) 2.35:1 screen to arrive. I'm at 13' so I don't know what angle that works out at, but it's 3.3 x screen heights. I'm currently using a 105" wide modified electric 16:9 screen it only shows the 2.35:1 section below a pelmet, but hasn't got a 'proper' top mask only the dark paint of the pelmet. I can't go any wider than my new screen as I have my left and right speakers mounted on the wall either side of the screen. I'm only changing due to screen texture (existing is a Greywolf II) and to get a slightly bigger tensioned 'proper' 2.35:1 screen to enjoy with my new AE3000.


Like someone else said, I feel quite inferior with my 'little' screen compared to some on here...but I'm in England so I should feel lucky to have the size I have.


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/15144769
> 
> 
> Stunningly sharp image at reasonably close viewing distance Panny.
> 
> 
> Thats the price you pay for Smoothscreen trying to hide the relatively high LCD pixel separation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on some measurements I made, a full 1080 resolution is impossible to achieve on the Panny. HF response (detail) is down at least 3db at 1080 using alternating black and white single pixel wide lines.
> 
> 
> Vern



A small price to pay , in my opinion. Personally I cannot tolerate ANY SDE be it LCD or DLP. If you want a film-like picture with no grid pattern the Panasonic will give it to you. There may be slightly sharper imaged projectors out there, but even the best DLP projectors reveal SDE if you get close enough. The Panasonics have ZERO SDE even a foot from the screen! I am not in a position to assess the practical significance of your measurements, but I do know a good picture when I see it, and the Panasonic LCD projectors deliver great looking pictures. So I happen to think that smooth screen technology is great. I'm sure I could spend a small fortune on a high end projector with a picture quality which is maybe 5% better than the Panasonic, but I like to think I have some common sense.


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/15165535
> 
> 
> If you want a film-like picture with no grid pattern the Panasonic will give it to you.



No digital looks like film. Some of what ends up on the reels was originally digital anyway, some movies are entirely digital but transferred to film.


A digital projectors job is to reproduce that data provided by the source as accurately as possible. Some images will show their celluloid origins and others will divulge their digital nature. If a PJ imparts an overall look, as some do, it is flawed. The aim is to be transparent.


Smooth screen is simply an attempt to hide a flaw that ends up reducing the PJs ability to resolve fine detail. It may hide the SDE but the price is very high.


----------



## Vern Dias




> Quote:
> If you want a film-like picture with no grid pattern the Panasonic will give it to you.



Yeah, 16mm film like,







it certainly can't resolve the fine detail inherent in 35mm due mainly to Smoothscreen.


Of course the viewer has to know what 35mm actually looks like when properly projected and viewed from a distance that allows the human eye to fully resolve all the detail present on the screen.


But in the end, it's the buyers decision and everyone prioritizes slightly differently.


BTW 1080 LCOS / DILA projectors have no visible pixels when viewed from .9x the screen width or more, which means that even at the closest THX and SMPTE reccomended viewing distance, pixels are invisible.


Vern


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/15165739
> 
> 
> BTW 1080 LCOS / DILA projectors have no visible pixels when viewed from .9x the screen width or more, which means that even at the closest THX and SMPTE reccomended viewing distance, pixels are invisible.



Even though the DLP chips are slightly larger, I doubt you will see visible pixels from one of them at 0.9x SW either...


Mark


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/15164438
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for my new 112" wide (47" high?) 2.35:1 screen to arrive. I'm at 13' so I don't know what angle that works out at, but it's 3.3 x screen heights.



Screen height will be 47.7"

Angle is approx 39.5 degrees (by my calculations)


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/15165739
> 
> 
> Yeah, 16mm film like,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it certainly can't resolve the fine detail inherent in 35mm due mainly to Smoothscreen.
> 
> 
> Of course the viewer has to know what 35mm actually looks like when properly projected and viewed from a distance that allows the human eye to fully resolve all the detail present on the screen.
> 
> 
> But in the end, it's the buyers decision and everyone prioritizes slightly differently.
> 
> 
> BTW 1080 LCOS / DILA projectors have no visible pixels when viewed from .9x the screen width or more, which means that even at the closest THX and SMPTE reccomended viewing distance, pixels are invisible.
> 
> 
> Vern



Don't knock 16mm film unless you know what your talking about. The fact is that 16mm film resolution exceeds HD video resolution, and 35mm film is in a league by itself. Your statement that the Panasonic cannot reveal 35mm film detail is ridiculous - no home theater video projector, no matter what price, can approach the quality of projected 35mm film. Even a good 16mm IB Technicolor print projected on a high quality 16mm projector will make your high end video projector look like crap.


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/15167669
> 
> 
> Screen height will be 47.7"
> 
> Angle is approx 39.5 degrees (by my calculations)



Thanks for working that out John. 







I'd since looked at the revised screen calculator on projector central and found out the height (to the nearest inch) as 48" (not as accurate as your calc), but my poor maths prevented me from working out the angle. This means that from my 19' throw distance I'm at 1 x zoom for 16:9 and 1.33 x zoom for 2.35:1. That gives me the most contrast possible as I'm at the minimum zoom end = less brightness/most contrast. As I have enough brightness even with an ND2 filter, then I'm good to go.


I just wish my new screen would arrive; the extra 7" width isn't so critical, but I'm fed up with the texture (and that's viewing at 3.3 x screenheight). FWIW if I hold my sample in front of my old screen I can see the pixels on my AE3000 (which will help focusing with the new screen), but I can only go back to my arm's length.


----------



## TSHA222




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/15168676
> 
> 
> Don't knock 16mm film unless you know what your talking about.



Not trying to get in the middle of the fray, and I'm sure he'll respond, but if anyone on these forums knows anything about film, it's Vern.


Chris White


----------



## Cristobal

I just double-checked, I sit about 10' back from an 11' wide 2.40:1 screen.


That's about as big as my brain can handle. I almost went 12' wide with the same seating distance, I'm glad I didn't, that would have been too big.


An immersive experience is the idea for me, I just love, love, love having a Scope setup, I just sit back and drink it all in.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cristobal* /forum/post/15169454
> 
> 
> I just double-checked, I sit about 10' back from an 11' wide 2.40:1 screen.
> 
> 
> That's about as big as my brain can handle. I almost went 12' wide with the same seating distance, I'm glad I didn't, that would have been too big.
> 
> 
> An immersive experience is the idea for me, I just love, love, love having a Scope setup, I just sit back and drink it all in.



Wow! So far, I think you and Art are the only ones sitting at less than 1 SW. At least this shows that this works fine for those that like it. My current 16x9 screen is 61"x110", so I'm going to try to manage a 2.35 with the same ht, which would make it ~ 142" W or so. And sitting at 12 ft, this is ~ 1 SW.


----------



## Cristobal

12 ft wide 2.35:1 screen by 12 ft seating distance? Brilliant! That sounds like the right idea to me!


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/15165739
> 
> 
> BTW 1080 LCOS / DILA projectors have no visible pixels when viewed from .9x the screen width or more, which means that even at the closest THX and SMPTE reccomended viewing distance, pixels are invisible.
> 
> 
> Vern



And without giving up high frequency information. The best of all worlds.


Art


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/15169509
> 
> 
> Wow! So far, I think you and Art are the only ones sitting at less than 1 SW. At least this shows that this works fine for those that like it. My current 16x9 screen is 61"x110", so I'm going to try to manage a 2.35 with the same ht, which would make it ~ 142" W or so. And sitting at 12 ft, this is ~ 1 SW.



Just for the record Coldmachine said he did as well. This isn't for everyone but yes it works !










Art


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/15170387
> 
> 
> Just for the record Coldmachine said he did as well. This isn't for everyone but yes it works !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art



Thanks, Art. Yes, I've had some pm's with CM, and have very much come around to his way of approaching this: look at 16x9 pics until you are sure you know the size that is best for you, and then simply take this ht for 2.35. This assumes, of course, that this doesn't make the 2.35 screen too large for your room. This will be pushing the limit for me, but it may just work.


----------



## Vern Dias




> Quote:
> Don't knock 16mm film unless you know what your talking about.



Sorry pal, but I do know exactly what I am talking about. I am talking about 16mm release prints, which is what we get to project. Not 16mm negative stock or reversal stock.


As a professional projectionist, having projected literally thousands of 35mm and hundreds of 16mm prints in a number of different venues in roughly a dozen cities across the U.S.s over the last 50 years and having 35mm, 16mm, and a Sony Qualia 004 video projector in my HT, I feel I am pretty well qualified to judge the relative quality of video, 16mm, and 35mm.


At a viewing distance of 1.2X 2.40:1 screen widths in my HT, relative quality is pretty obvious.


Yes, Super 16 negative stock compares reasonably with HD, but when you include printing and generational losses in producing a release print, it's not going to be anywhere near HD quality.


BTW, I also spent 4 years working at the Ideal Pictures division of Royal Amusements in Honolulu which was the local 16mm Films Inc. distributor for the state of Hawaii.



> Quote:
> Even a good 16mm IB Technicolor print projected on a high quality 16mm projector will make your high end video projector look like crap.



That's baloney.







I have multiple 35mm IB Tech prints in all 3 AR's in my collection and the IB prints look no more detailed than HD projected from the Sony.


Is the color palette different between an IB Tech print and video? Yes. But when viewed from 1.1 or 1.2 screen widths, even with a 35mm IB Tech print, grain size, which impacts detail, can be problematical depending on the print.


Vern


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/15170653
> 
> 
> Sorry pal, but I do know exactly what I am talking about. I am talking about 16mm release prints, which is what we get to project. Not 16mm negative stock or reversal stock.
> 
> 
> As a professional projectionist, having projected literally thousands of 35mm and hundreds of 16mm prints in a number of different venues in roughly a dozen cities across the U.S.s over the last 50 years and having 35mm, 16mm, and a Sony Qualia 004 video projector in my HT, I feel I am pretty well qualified to judge the relative quality of video, 16mm, and 35mm.
> 
> 
> At a viewing distance of 1.2X 2.40:1 screen widths in my HT, relative quality is pretty obvious.
> 
> 
> Yes, Super 16 negative stock compares reasonably with HD, but when you include printing and generational losses in producing a release print, it's not going to be anywhere near HD quality.
> 
> 
> BTW, I also spent 4 years working at the Ideal Pictures division of Royal Amusements in Honolulu which was the local 16mm Films Inc. distributor for the state of Hawaii.
> 
> 
> That's baloney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have multiple 35mm IB Tech prints in all 3 AR's in my collection and the IB prints look no more detailed than HD projected from the Sony.
> 
> 
> Is the color palette different between an IB Tech print and video? Yes. But when viewed from 1.1 or 1.2 screen widths, even with a 35mm IB Tech print, grain size, which impacts detail, can be problematical depending on the print.
> 
> 
> Vern



That must be quite a video projector you have Vern, since the resolution of 35mm film is equivalent to about 12 megapixels.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15165803
> 
> 
> Even though the DLP chips are slightly larger, I doubt you will see visible pixels from one of them at 0.9x SW either...
> 
> 
> Mark



I don't disagree, but at least one viewer (Art) has reported that he can clearly see pixelation at 1x SW for his 1080p 3-DLP projector when it's zoomed to fill the screen and not through a lens.


Don't want to open another can of worms, but just wanted to point out the obvious that pixel visibility varies from person to person.


----------



## Vern Dias




> Quote:
> since the resolution of 35mm film is equivalent to about 12 megapixels.



Again you are confusing the resolution of a first generation laser exposed negative, which has nothing to do with the resolution of 35mm film as projected in a theatre, which is generally in the vicinity of 2K. Also, 12 MP sounds more like a 35mm still camera frame which is twice as large as a 35mm anamorphic format motion picture film frame. Make that a non-anamorphic format 35mm film frame and you wind up knocking another ~30% or so off the anamorphic frame resolution number.


Interestingly enough, roughly 50% of todays productions are using Digital Intermediates at (gasp!!!) 2K resolution in the production stream.


So, at best, a release print taken from a DI will have a 2 megapixel resolution.


Also, the great majority of today's cinema digital projection is done at 2K resolution. Even when one of the relatively few available 4K projectors are installed, most source files continue to be at 2K res.


So, please, lets live in the real world rather then in some spec nirvana here when we make these comparisons.










Vern


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/15171916
> 
> 
> I don't disagree, but at least one viewer (Art) has reported that he can clearly see pixelation at 1x SW for his 1080p 3-DLP projector when it's zoomed to fill the screen and not through a lens.
> 
> 
> Don't want to open another can of worms, but just wanted to point out the obvious that pixel visibility varies from person to person.



I don't zoom and niether does Art. Art's observations were spot on and he made an informed decision based on what he saw to ultimately use a lens.


Zoomers would no doubt see pixels at that distance due to their increased size (33% in both directions). At a decent TR at nominal small image size (at the small end of the zoom range) using the full 1080 rez at that distance, I doubt you would see pixels, they are just too small...


Mark


----------



## phisch

I just recently constructed a 2.35:1 set-up in my theater with a 10' wide screen. My first row seats are 1.1 screen length away from the screen using a JVC RS-1 and the picture is great. I am currently using the zoom method, but I plan to buy an A-lens when I am finished researching them to decide which will be best for my set up. The picture is so good now, I can't imagine it getting better with a lens, but I'm sure it will.


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/15171916
> 
> 
> I don't disagree, but at least one viewer (Art) has reported that he can clearly see pixelation at 1x SW for his 1080p 3-DLP projector when it's zoomed to fill the screen and not through a lens.
> 
> 
> Don't want to open another can of worms, but just wanted to point out the obvious that pixel visibility varies from person to person.



As well as from projector to projector.







I think it's obvious that some projectors are better suited for using the zoom method than others. For ex. LCOS shows less pixel structure than DLP.


Back to the poll: I sit at 1x SW with my RS1 and find the immersion perfect for both scope and 16:9. Pixel structure is visible extremely rarely. The only reason I would consider sitting farther back is some soft transfers would look a little better. But of course everything has trade-offs.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15172668
> 
> 
> I don't zoom and niether does Art. Art's observations were spot on and he made an informed decision based on what he saw to ultimately use a lens.
> 
> 
> Zoomers would no doubt see pixels at that distance due to their increased size (33% in both directions). At a decent TR at nominal small image size (at the small end of the zoom range) using the full 1080 rez at that distance, I doubt you would see pixels, they are just too small...
> 
> 
> Mark



Right. To summarize:


- Taffman commented that his *zoomed image* on the AE3000 looks very sharp with no SDE/pixellation at close distance.


*Since the original comment was in regards to a zoomed image, the responses should also be considering zoomed images for apples-to-apples comparison.*



- Vern responded that it's not really sharp because the smooth screen from the Panny degrades HF detail in order to hide the SDE. He also comments that LCOS/DILA has no SDE at 0.9x SW while still maintaining better HF detail than the Panny.


- You (CAVX) commented that DLPs also have little to no pixel visibility [also presumably with better HF detail] at 0.9x SW.


- I commented that some viewers can see pixels > 0.9x SW on DLPs. In particular, Art can see pixels at 1x SW.


What I got from Vern and your responses was that LCOS and DLP has the same pixel visibility @ 1.0x SW as LCD+smoothscreen with additional benefit of better HF detail. But I'm just pointing out some people still can make out pixels with DLPs at 1.0x SW.


There are many options to reduce pixel visibility, anamorphic lens is one of them.


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/15175051
> 
> *Since the original comment was in regards to a zoomed image, the responses should also be considering zoomed images for apples-to-apples comparison.*...There are many options to reduce pixel visibility, anamorphic lens is one of them.



Another (for Zoomers) is to de-focus a small amount. I sit at 1x SW and have de-focussed a few ticks, just enough that the pixels disappear but still have zero impact on the sharpness of the actual movie presentation.


If Zooming is the "poor man's CIH system" then "de-focussing" is the non-Panny owner's "smoothscreen" (I have an xtal-sharp Mits 1080p).


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/15175051
> 
> 
> Art can see pixels at 1x SW.



Actually it is more like 0.8x width with the lens and 1.4x with zooming.


Art


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/15175051
> 
> 
> 
> - You (CAVX) commented that DLPs also have little to no pixel visibility [also presumably with better HF detail] at 0.9x SW.
> 
> 
> - I commented that some viewers can see pixels > 0.9x SW on DLPs. In particular, Art can see pixels at 1x SW.
> 
> 
> What I got from Vern and your responses was that LCOS and DLP has the same pixel visibility @ 1.0x SW as LCD+smoothscreen with additional benefit of better HF detail. But I'm just pointing out some people still can make out pixels with DLPs at 1.0x SW.
> 
> 
> There are many options to reduce pixel visibility, anamorphic lens is one of them.



Again, please stop making out that ALL anamorphic lens reduces pixel visibility - good ones DO NOT!!!


Lets look at the maths -


If my screen is 1450mm (57") high, then my pixles are going to be 1.34mm x 1.34mm. If I use a 1.33x stretch lens, then my pixles will be 1.78mm x 1.34mm. If I zoom, my pixels are 1.78 x 1.78mm. If I am sitting at 1x SW, then yes I belive I would see some pixel structure as the pixles are physically bigger. When zooming, there are 810 vertical pixels in the same space that would allow 1080 with a lens. Therefore I would need to sit further back to compensate.


The purpose of the lens is not to reduce the pixel structure because GOOD lenses resolve all of the detail, but to allow the pixels to be physically smaller in the vertical direction to which we are more sensitive. If there we had panels like those used in D-Cinema (2048 x 1080), we could use a lens with less stretch (1.25x) to obtain the same AR with possibly an even better result (for those concerned by optical expansion only of course)...


Mark


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15177940
> 
> 
> Again, please stop making out that ALL anamorphic lens reduces pixel visibility - good ones DO NOT!!!
> 
> 
> Lets look at the maths -
> 
> 
> If my screen is 1450mm (57") high, then my pixles are going to be 1.34mm x 1.34mm. If I use a 1.33x stretch lens, then my pixles will be 1.78mm x 1.34mm. If I zoom, my pixels are 1.78 x 1.78mm. If I am sitting at 1x SW, then yes I belive I would see some pixel structure as the pixles are physically bigger. When zooming, there are 810 vertical pixels in the same space that would allow 1080 with a lens. Therefore I would need to sit further back to compensate.



I'm not sure what statement of mine you're trying to contradict.


I refer to pixel visibility as to the ability to discern the pixel structure composing an image (i.e. seeing a stair-step instead of a smooth diagonal line.


Rectangular, stretched pixels are smaller than zoomed, square pixels. That's exactly the output of any anamorphic lens (good or bad). You stated as much, and I concur. Smaller pixels are harder to see than bigger pixels. Ergo, pixel visibility is reduced.


So I'm really puzzled why you say that good lens won't reduce pixel visibility, when that is the primary purpose of the lens.


However, all this discussion of lens vs zooming is beside the point. Vern and you are saying (at least I think you're saying) is that with all things equal, LCOS and DLP have similar pixel visibility as LCD w/smoothscreen @ 0.9x SW, and retain better HF detail as well. I don't think it's fair to compare pixel visibility of a LCOS/DLP with lens vs zoomed smoothscreen, so we should compare zoomed LCOS/DLP and zoomed smoothscreen. And in that comparison, we have at least one viewer (Art) who can see pixel structure on a very good DLP at 1.4x SW (thanks for the clarification, Art)!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/15178565
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what statement of mine you're trying to contradict.
> 
> 
> I refer to pixel visibility as to the ability to discern the pixel structure composing an image (i.e. seeing a stair-step instead of a smooth diagonal line.
> 
> 
> Rectangular, stretched pixels are smaller than zoomed, square pixels. That's exactly the output of any anamorphic lens (good or bad). You stated as much, and I concur. Smaller pixels are harder to see than bigger pixels. Ergo, pixel visibility is reduced.
> 
> 
> So I'm really puzzled why you say that good lens won't reduce pixel visibility, when that is the primary purpose of the lens.



I just seem to keep reading about people's perception of anamorphic lenses making the image soft, and my point is that good lenses do not do this. In fact I have used the gaps between the pixels of my 1080 as a grid for setting the astigmatism correction on one very well designed anamorphic lens. A simple 2 prism HE lens will allow you to see the horizontal lines, but the verticals tend to look a little soft - IE they are stretched by 33% and without astigmatism correction, continue to progressively expand.


This lens however allowed the verticals to come in as sharp as the horizontals. Once it was set, it didn't matter what we projected, the image was razor sharp corner to corner. And because we used the full 1080 rez at a fixed zoom, the only real difference between lens in and lens out was the AR change...



> Quote:
> However, all this discussion of lens vs zooming is beside the point. Vern and you are saying (at least I think you're saying) is that with all things equal, LCOS and DLP have similar pixel visibility as LCD w/smoothscreen @ 0.9x SW, and retain better HF detail as well. I don't think it's fair to compare pixel visibility of a LCOS/DLP with lens vs zoomed smoothscreen, so we should compare zoomed LCOS/DLP and zoomed smoothscreen. And in that comparison, we have at least one viewer (Art) who can see pixel structure on a very good DLP at 1.4x SW (thanks for the clarification, Art)!



A fair request, but how many DLP or LCOS projectors offer the 2x zoom like the Panny to make this a fair comparison?


Mark


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/15178565
> 
> 
> Vern and you are saying (at least I think you're saying) is that with all things equal, LCOS and DLP have similar pixel visibility as LCD w/smoothscreen @ 0.9x SW, and retain better HF detail as well.



Maybe I'm confused. Isn't it common knowledge that smoothscreen greatly reduces pixel visibility but at the cost of reducing sharpness? (at least perceived sharpness). Isn't it also common knowledge that, on average, LCOS will show less pixel visibility than DLP due to greater fill factor? (Also resulting in less perceived sharpness) Admittedly, I haven't seen enough projectors in controlled conditions to do all these comparisons myself. I'm just going by what I've read on here for years. Anyone done enough comparisons to comment?


----------



## taffman

Panasonics 'Smooth Screen Technology' does not reduce SDE - it totally eliminates it, at any distance. In that sense, at least, the Panasonics are superior to any other projectors on the market. If there is an accompanying reduction in image sharpness, it is not apparent to me. I find that image sharpness on the Panasonic is almost solely a function of the source DVD quality, with most movies looking simply stunning and a few looking a little softer.

So I am a big fan of SST, because I do not have to be concerned at all about my audience ever seeing SDE, even if they walk up to the screen! It is interesting to read how most people have to design there home theater seating to eliminate SDE, whereas with the Panasonic, minimum viewing distance is almost solely a function of the DVD quality.


----------



## Art Sonneborn

Isn't it also now common knowledge that SST truncates high frequency information giving that up to reduce SDE ?


Art


----------



## Vern Dias




> Quote:
> sharpness on the Panasonic is almost solely a function of the source DVD quality



This says it all. Why bother with a 1080 projector if you are using DVD as a benchmark?


It takes a BD or an HD DVD, or an HTPC / Scaler outputting 1080 from a 1080 source to evaluate a 1080 projectors image quality. Anything less and you are evaluating the source video quality, not the projector.



> Quote:
> minimum viewing distance is almost solely a function of the DVD quality.



Minimum viewing distance should be specified based on SMPTE / THX standards, at which distance pixel visibility should not be a factor anyhow.


Vern


----------



## 5mark

Sorry, didn't mean to start another smoothscreen debate. For the record, I was impressed with what smoothscreen could do on my old Panny 900 from a close viewing distance.(Other 720p LCDs would have been unwatchable.)


What I'm most interested in is if someone has compared LCOS and DLP on the same screen under the same conditions and can comment on pixel visibility.


As far as the earlier quote, here's what Vern actually said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/15165739
> 
> 
> BTW 1080 LCOS / DILA projectors have no visible pixels when viewed from .9x the screen width or more, which means that even at the closest THX and SMPTE reccomended viewing distance, pixels are invisible.



And here's what CAVX actually said:


> Quote:
> Even though the DLP chips are slightly larger, I doubt you will see visible pixels from one of them at 0.9x SW either...



Not exactly a direct comparison.







Anyone done the comparison I mentioned above?


BTW, as an LCOS owner I would have to disagree with Vern somewhat. At that distance I think many people would see some pixel structure in very bright areas (as opposed to SDE).


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/15182944
> 
> 
> Isn't it also now common knowledge that SST truncates high frequency information giving that up to reduce SDE ?
> 
> 
> Art



That was always my understanding too. (And my findings ..._previous_ Panny 700 owner here)


----------



## CAVX

Maybe you should have asked and not just assumed!


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *5mark* /forum/post/15183996
> 
> 
> 
> And here's what CAVX actually said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Even though the DLP chips are slightly larger, I doubt you will see visible pixels from one of them at 0.9x SW either...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly a direct comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone done the comparison I mentioned above?
Click to expand...


So how about the test I did in June that used a SONY WV60 on one shelf and a BenQ W5000 on the next shelf both projecting onto the same 3436 x 1450 screen (using a card to block the light of the projector not in use at the time), having them both calibrated to D6500K and then feeding them the same HD source material via HDMI.


Both very very good, but IMHO, the DLP had a little more shaprness to the image. The BenQ's lens however produced visible CA that the SONY did not.


As for the pixels, both produced the same size because 1450 / 1080 = 1.34mm regardless of the fact that the chip set in the BenQ is 0.9".


Is that direct enough?


Mark


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15185159
> 
> 
> Maybe you should have asked and not just assumed!



Uh...I think I did ask.







I hope it was clear I was trying to clarify that you and Vern had made two separate statements in the thread. ilsiu's summary made it sound like a comparison between LCOS and DLP had been made by one or both of you.


Anyway, thanks for responding with info from your test. It makes sense that the pixel size on the screen would be the same. But from the same viewing position did you note which projector had more visible pixel structure?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *5mark* /forum/post/15185733
> 
> 
> Uh...I think I did ask.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope it was clear I was trying to clarify that you and Vern had made two separate statements in the thread. ilsiu's summary made it sound like a comparison between LCOS and DLP had been made by one or both of you.
> 
> 
> Anyway, thanks for responding with info from your test. It makes sense that the pixel size on the screen would be the same. But from the same viewing position did you note which projector had more visible pixel structure?



At seating distances as close as 2x the image height, I could not see pixel structure on either projector for HD images for a movie but a PC desk top tended to reveal the jaggies (pixel structure?) a touch. On the day I felt that the DLP was producing a shaper image, but the LCOS had the advantage of no RBE which I found a little problematic on that size screen with the DLP.


I didn't have an LCD to test on the day...


Mark


----------



## taffman

Mark, are you implying that DLP rainbows become a problem with very large screens?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/15190985
> 
> 
> Mark, are you implying that DLP rainbows become a problem with very large screens?



Not really. Maybe I am just more sensitive to RBE than others. On the day we were projecting lots of static images and test patterns (white grids on black are bad), I think it was worse. I like DLP's blacks, colour fidelity (even though I know there is a green channel error with the BenQ) and uniform grey scale. I moved from LCD to DLP because I was tired of the RGB shifts I seeing with my LCD (previous 3 projectors have all been LCD). I was told that the new LCDs used non organic pannels and would not suffer this, but I have actually managed to capture the effect with a camera on newer projectors. And it seems this is not just an LCD problem as I have seen this quite bad on a few SONY WV60s (LCOS) and Epson TW 1000s (LCD). Grey in video is equal amounts of RGB and therefore when I project a grey feild, it should be, well grey, not have a red, green or blue area.


So any way I decided to move to DLP for my first 1080 machine, and yes I see RBE - heaps of it. Would I go back to LCD? No, as DLP's pro certainly out way the cons I've experienced with LCD...


Mark


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15185830
> 
> 
> At seating distances as close as 2x the image height, I could not see pixel structure on either projector for HD images for a movie but a PC desk top tended to reveal the jaggies (pixel structure?) a touch. On the day I felt that the DLP was producing a shaper image, but the LCOS had the advantage of no RBE which I found a little problematic on that size screen with the DLP.
> 
> 
> I didn't have an LCD to test on the day...
> 
> 
> Mark



So if I made the statement, "LCOS allows you to sit closer to the screen than DLP without seeing pixel structure"(the conventional wisdom), you wouldn't necessarily agree with that? Anyone else have comparisons or comments?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *5mark* /forum/post/15191453
> 
> 
> So if I made the statement, "LCOS allows you to sit closer to the screen than DLP without seeing pixel structure"(the conventional wisdom), you wouldn't necessarily agree with that? Anyone else have comparisons or comments?



I'll be visiting that room again soon (maybe this week) and I am pretty sure I can see "jaggies" on the PC desk top with the SONY as well, but I will take note of the distances and post back...


Mark


----------



## Person99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/15170653
> 
> 
> and having 35mm, 16mm, and a Sony Qualia 004 video projector in my HT



No love for your gone and forgotten CRT? Man, it didn't even make the list.


----------



## Vern Dias

That was history, although I used the Runco for 5 years and went through 2 sets of CRTs, this is now..










Vern


----------

