# THX Recommended Viewing Angles......



## Brad/Viper-Fan

For those trying to decide how far to sit from the screen, *THX Home Entertainment* has recommended viewing angles.


Many already know THX recommends the best viewing distance for 16:9 HDTV is a 40 degree or less viewing angle for the best source material.


What I didn't know is they also have a recommendation for 2:35 HD screens. *Their recommendation for 2:35 screens is 50 degrees.* "The real goal is to have a picture that's big enough to be involving yet small enough to appear sharp."


----------



## CAVX

50 degrees? Please post a link...


Mark


----------



## Brad/Viper-Fan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 50 degrees? Please post a link...
> 
> 
> Mark




Not a link. John Dahl answered my email. Seems very close to me, so I have another email to him to explain a little.


40 degrees or less for 16:9 is on their web site, but not 50 degrees for 2:35, thats why I emailed him, for an answer to 2:35. His answer was 50 degrees. Just like with 40 degrees, I'm sure he meant 50 *or less* and only with the best source material. Still, 50 seems awful close. I know the THX cinema spec you posted was 36 degrees to the farthest recommended seat, maybe the 50 degrees is for the closest seat.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad/Viper-Fan* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I know the THX cinema spec you posted was 36 degrees to the farthest recommended seat, maybe the 50 degrees is for the closest seat.



Actually 26 degrees is minimum angle with 36 degrees being preferred...


Mark


----------



## stanger89

I was going to say, I thought THX specified _minimum_ viewing angles, not _maximum_ angles.


----------



## Brad/Viper-Fan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Actually 26 degrees is minimum angle with 36 degrees being preferred...
> 
> 
> Mark




If I remember correctly 26 deg. is in the acceptable area but 36 deg. is in the recommended area, farthest seat.


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad/Viper-Fan* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The real goal is to have a picture that's big enough to be involving yet small enough to appear sharp.



A projector like the RS1 changes all the rules in this relationship. I'm not sure exactly how degrees match up with screen widths, but the RS1 still looks incredibly sharp from as close as 1.0 screen widths. I see you're in the Bay Area. PM me if you'd like a demo.


----------



## Art Sonneborn

Do you guys actually trust THX more than folks here who have every type of theater and projection system imaginable? Personally, I just don't see them as the go to guys for this stuff.


Art


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

50 degrees is just a tad over 1 x screen width, and with 36 degrees being the back seats in some of their certified theaters (1.54 x screen width for scope), 1 x seating distance sounds reasonable. There are a few people on this forum who quite happily sit at that distance in their theaters and with 1080 being available now I can see more people sitting closer than 1.5 x.


Art, I believe you sit quite a bit closer than 1.54 in your theater don't you?


Gary


----------



## Lindahl

Most people tend to feel 1.0x-1.2x is the ideal seating distance for a good source on a 2.35 native screen. THX recs for 2.35 seem to jive with this.


----------



## stanger89

I'm at about 1.25x from my 720p setup and lovin' it!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Do you guys actually trust THX more than folks here who have every type of theater and projection system imaginable? Personally, I just don't see them as the go to guys for this stuff.
> 
> 
> Art



Art,


Regardless of what THX has become today, when George Lucas owned it, it set new standards world wide for both cinema and home theatre. Granted things have changed (probably fair to say even slacked off), but I feel that the original standards (those implemented when Tom Holman was technical director) still to be quite valid.


The 26 degrees thing was actually for retrofitting of older cinemas. In the original specs, anything less than 26degrees was considered to be a bowling alley and not to be passed.


For new construction, yes 36 degrees should be the viewing angle from the centre back seat to the edges of the screen. Therefore anyone sitting closer will have a larger viewing angle. I'm sure I read that front row should not be closer than 45 degrees...


Mark


----------



## Dennis Erskine

... THX or no, one must consider beam spot width, pixel density and size, resolution and the viewer's own preferences as being the primary factors associated with seating distances.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dennis Erskine* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ... THX or no, one must consider beam spot width, pixel density and size, resolution and the viewer's own preferences as being the primary factors associated with seating distances.



Agreed. Dennis just out curiosity, what you would consider ideal for say a 720 projector?


Mark


----------



## Brad/Viper-Fan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad/Viper-Fan* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Not a link. John Dahl answered my email. Seems very close to me, so I have another email to him to explain a little.
> 
> 
> 40 degrees or less for 16:9 is on their web site, but not 50 degrees for 2:35, thats why I emailed him, for an answer to 2:35. His answer was 50 degrees. Just like with 40 degrees, I'm sure he meant 50 *or less* and only with the best source material. Still, 50 seems awful close. I know the THX cinema spec you posted was 36 degrees to the farthest recommended seat, maybe the 50 degrees is for the closest seat.




John Dahl was again kind enough to answer my follow up email:


"As you observed the apparent screen size changes with seating distance. In a THX Certified cinema with film or digital cinema video the THX screen site should be nlt 36 degrees from the back row and ngt 53 degrees from the closest row. These are the limits between a majority of patrons can find a comfortable seat. This is also in a dark theater with the picture at 14-16 foot lamberts brightness."




"If you like to sit in the middle and you have or plan to invest in a quality 1080p system 40 degrees would be about right (keyword is about). Try going to a quality shop and walking closer to and further away from the various images and you'll see what I mean. If you don't have a top quality image then a smaller size is called for."



Regards,




John Dahl


Senior Fellow


Director, Education


THX Ltd.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dennis Erskine* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ... THX or no, one must consider beam spot width, pixel density and size, resolution and the viewer's own preferences as being the primary factors associated with seating distances.



Thank you ! I see guys on the forum using THX standards all the time as "what one does" . I sit one screen width back but that isn't the point, the point is in so many ways we have such deverse and powerful experience here we can ask questions regarding screen material, resolution, type of projector or projection technology, software used, as well as simple viewer preference etc to get best seating rather than using the blanket ,generalized average numbers THX gives out.


Art


----------



## Brad/Viper-Fan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thank you ! I see guys on the forum using THX standards all the time as "what one does" . I sit one screen width back but that isn't the point, the point is in so many ways we have such deverse and powerful experience here we can ask questions regarding screen material, resolution, type of projector or projection technology, software used, as well as simple viewer preference etc to get best seating rather than using the blanket ,generalized average numbers THX gives out.
> 
> 
> Art



*THX is always careful to state these are recommended guidelines not laws*, and that there are many variables as Dennis Erskine pointed out to take into account. They don't pull these guidelines out of the sky, there is much science and research behind them, but still guidelines, not laws. Why do you imply these are hard fast rules dictated by THX?


----------



## tvted




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad/Viper-Fan* /forum/post/0
> 
> *THX is always careful to state these are recommended guidelines not laws*, and that there are many variables as Dennis Erskine pointed out to take into account. They don't pull these guidelines out of the sky, there is much science and research behind them, but still guidelines, not laws. Why do you imply these are hard fast rules dictated by THX?



I certainly can't speak for Art but he stated that


> *Quote:*
> *
> 
> 
> guys on the forum using THX standards all the time as "what one does"*


*
* not that THX was dictating "hard fast rules".


Having been involved in these discussions in the past (just ask Mark (*CAVX*)







and I rarely post much anymore but I do believe that many of us are quite aware that this is based on research with respect to visual acuity, pixel density, and artifacting. That in itself has convinced many that the THX guidelines are more than guidelines, declaring that 36 degrees is the _optimum_ viewing angle. If that were so, we are now only moving into the range of what is _optimum_ with 1080p displays. This is obviously not true as many of us sit closer than this would imply. I and many others sit damn well where we please.


ted


----------



## RandyFreeman

I want to mention a very practical way of determining the minimum viewing distance for your home theater. Walk up to the screen and look at the pixel structure of the image. Now slowly back up until you can't see the pixels. This is the minimum viewing distance for your theater.


If you have a low resolution projector you will have to sit further away from the image to not see the pixels than if you have a high resolution projector. You can view a high resolution projector at a much greater viewing angle and not see the pixels in the image.


Randy


----------



## McCall

The point is that they are JUST guidelines and many new people looking for advice on here and builiding their own theaters take them as the word from on high. Art rightfully points out that the real world experience of the home theater makers on here is often more correct and "right" for the individuals here than thinking the guidelines are gospel and can't be tampered with.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad/Viper-Fan* /forum/post/0
> 
> *THX is always careful to state these are recommended guidelines not laws*, and that there are many variables as Dennis Erskine pointed out to take into account. They don't pull these guidelines out of the sky, there is much science and research behind them, but still guidelines, not laws. Why do you imply these are hard fast rules dictated by THX?



Because too many here treat them as if they are.


Art


----------



## usualsuspects

THX recommendations are worthless. Everybody has different equipment in different rooms with differing personal taste. All THX numbers do is distract people from the one and only way to figure out what you like best - experiment. I understand why people want these numbers when they are building their theaters - so that they can figure out seating and screen sizes, but I think it is really a disservice to pretend that the THX numbers mean anything.


----------



## wildfire99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Dahl* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> "If you like to sit in the middle and you have or plan to invest in a quality 1080p system 40 degrees would be about right (keyword is about). Try going to a quality shop and walking closer to and further away from the various images and you'll see what I mean. If you don't have a top quality image then a smaller size is called for.



And when you find your 'sweet spot' during demos... subtract 20% of the distance because inevitably, you will get used to the picture and wish you were that much closer.


----------



## CAVX

The guidelines do work. So many people come here asking the same questions about screen size seating distance in their room. Why not use the same math as is used on a COMMERCIAL CINEMA ?


If you had a room 18.4 feet deep, 12.8 feet wide and 8 foot ceilings, how large a screen could you install and what would be your ideal seating location?


Option 1 - maxed out


18.4 / 3.68 = 5 (max screen height)


5 x 2.37 = 11.85 (screen AR)


In this case, I choose the largest size for the room based on 36 degrees from the back of the room. There is no figure given for seating distance so is ideal for those wanting to sit 1x the screen width.


Option 2 - the more conservative approach


18.4 / 5.18 = 3.5 (screen height)


3.5 x 2.37:1 = 8.3 (screen AR rounded)


3.5 x 3.68 = 12.9 (36 degree viewing angle that keeps the seats off the back wall)


This also gives you an idea where to place the surrounds (as they go +/-90 to the listening position).


Whilst you can choose to disagree, this just takes the guess work out of it...


Mark


----------



## Mark_H

I agree with Mark.


I think guidelines are extremely useful. Art is absolutely right that there are many people here with a lot of experience, but how does one find which people to trust? There are a good number of people here I *do* trust for good advice, but it has taken a good few years of being a forum member, while living with my own equipment and making my own mistakes, to figure out who those people are and like any forum there is also a ton of misadvice around. Industry standards serve as a solid starting point for any project - one can then adjust from their to suit there particular requirements.


Mark


----------



## Rgb

Here is a table I did in a spreadsheet some time ago, which expresses viewing distance in screen widths, and the number of discrete picture elements ("pixels", or alternating single pixel vertical black & white lines 1:1 mapped on a digital display) resolvable by a 20/20 human eye, which has a resolution of one arc minute.


Simple geometry/trigonometry was used to compute the values.


To me, the optimum viewing distance is a little closer than the distance your eyes can't resolve the individual pixels, whether the imaging device of a digital projector or the source material (1080p HD on a CRT, for example, though beam spot size may factor in).


Based on the one-arc-minute eye resolution standard, it appears the 36 degree number, or about 1.54 screen widths, is just about right for 1920 horizontal pixel material on a 1080p resolving projector. Any farther, and your eyes won't discern the full detail in well authored 1080p material. Much closer, and you could start to see individual pixels, screen door, pixel structure, etc.


Art S.-


Looks like you need a 4K rig, since you like to sit at 1.0 widths- your eyes might be able to see at least 3440 pixels across










BTW- any demo/meet planned this year?


----------



## CAVX

Makes sense given that the 36 degree rule is for film which has no pixels...


Mark


----------



## QQQ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rgb* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Based on the one-arc-minute eye resolution standard, it appears the 36 degree number, or about 1.54 screen widths, is just about right for 1920 horizontal pixel material on a 1080p resolving projector. Much closer, and you could start to see individual pixels, screen door, pixel structure, etc.



Interesting, I've seen this stated multiple times, yet I don't think I can recall a single person who I've ever shown a 1920 x 1080 LCOS projector to that can see pixels at 1.5 x or for that matter 1.0 x screen width. And when I've asked those making the statements if they have seen a projector such as the JVC RS1 (or earlier JVC 1080 models) and can see pixels at 1 x screen width, they don't respond.


So...have you seen an RS1 (or Sony Qualia) and can you see pixels at 1 screen width? I sure as heck can't and most people seem to report that they have to go within a few feet of the screen to make out pixel structure. In fact, it's funny because if you have a bunch of videophiles over they'll walk up to the screen to try and make out pixel structure.


Now, I know my post is a little aggressive (or so I was told in another post the other day







), but I'm highly skeptical that people writing these things have confirmed them in world practice - rather I suspect they are based on the equations and experience with projectors that happen to confirm them. But if you tell me you can see pixels on a JVC RS1 at 1x screen width, I'll believe you (maybe







).


----------



## Rgb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *QQQ* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Interesting, I've seen this stated multiple times, yet I don't think I can recall a single person who I've ever shown a 1920 x 1080 LCOS projector to that can see pixels at 1.5 x or for that matter 1.0 x screen width. And when I've asked those making the statements if they have seen a projector such as the JVC RS1 (or earlier JVC 1080 models) and can see pixels at 1 x screen width, they don't respond.
> 
> 
> So...have you seen an RS1 (or Sony Qualia) and can you see pixels at 1 screen width? I sure as heck can't and most people seem to report that they have to go within a few feet of the screen to make out pixel structure. In fact, it's funny because if you have a bunch of videophiles over they'll walk up to the screen to try and make out pixel structure.
> 
> 
> Now, I know my post is a little aggressive (or so I was told in another post the other day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), but I'm highly skeptical that people writing these things have confirmed them in world practice - rather I suspect they are based on the equations and experience with projectors that happen to confirm them. But if you tell me you can see pixels on a JVC RS1 at 1x screen width, I'll believe you (maybe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).



I understand what you mean, and I knew my post would draw some fire- I've been around the block a few times on these forums










I guess what I really wanted to imply was the video signal detail level a 20/20 eye can perceive, which is a separate issue from the display device pixel structure issue.


To prove the video signal detail level issue, simply display a single pixel test pattern (attached below), tiled on your PC desktop, with the PC set to the projector's native res like 1280x720 or 1920x1080, ensuring the projector is 1:1 pixel mapping.


Walk up to the screen, within a few inches. No matter what projector you own, the single pixel vertical lines in the test pattern attached will be visible, and should be sharp and distinct, assuming the projector is pixel mapping. Note that the ability to see the individual alternating black/white lines does not imply you can see the pixel structure of the projector's imaging element, whether its LCOS, DILA, SXRD, DLP, LCD, etc.


Now slowly back away from the screen. Note the distance at which the vertical alternating B/W lines appear to be a gray field vs distinct lines. This is the limit of your eye resolution, and should represent the max distance you can perceive the smallest video signal detail your projector is capable of resolving.


What confuses people in these 1080p vs 720p religious arguments is the confounding of the display device pixel structure vs the available detail in the video signal source material.


Lots of HD transfers probably have no more than 720p effective level of detail, some of the reference blue laser discs might use all 1920x1080 pixels for detail content in many scenes.


Likewise, one 720p projector may have discernible pixel structure from close to medium distances, while another model has nearly undetectable pixel structure/ screen door. Same goes for 1080p projectors, I assume.


----------



## Rgb

Continued from

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post10763855 


I simply used one arc minute subtended onto a screen surface from a viewers eye, then found how many arc minutes fit onto the screen width at a given distance, which is the number in the second column from the left. I assumed that each arc minute would be a "pixel", or individual dot of detail, the smallest dot (or detail) resolvable by a 20/20 eye at that distance.


You would need to adjust the figures for better or worse than 20/20 vision.


It's as simple as converting the 36 degrees recommended here at 1.54 widths to arc minutes:


36 deg * 60 arcmin/deg = 2160 arc minutes should be resolvable by a 20/20 human eye at 1.54 screen widths, or 2160 B/W line pairs (1080 black, 1080 white, alternating and adjacent)


Since video engineers use alternating lines of black and white to determine resolution limits, maybe my assumption was wrong.


Maybe the second column from the left should be divided by two, thereby representing a B/W line pair in standard video test pattern resolution tests? Thoughts?


Based on perceptual contrast issues, adjacent pixels that differ in contrast less than a B/W line pair may not be discernible. In most normal movies, adjacent pixels often don't have the contrast of a B/W pair.


Biomechanical, optical-device-like description of the human eye and its resolution ability:

http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResou...sualacuity.htm


----------



## QQQ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rgb* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I understand what you mean, and I knew my post would draw some fire- I've been around the block a few times on these forums
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess what I really wanted to imply was the detail level a 20/20 eye can perceive, which is a separate issue from the display device pixel structure issue.



I haven't finished the rest of your post/s yet, and will in a moment, but you'll notice I specifically did not disagree with that part of your post.


----------



## Rgb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *QQQ* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I haven't finished the rest of your post/s yet, and will in a moment, but you'll notice I specifically did not disagree with that part of your post.



Fair enough.


In this thread
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post10767368 


BobL makes some good points that the B/W line pairs represent the absolute best case for resolvable detail by a human eye.


For any two adjacent less contrasting colors, which is the case for most adjacent pixels in a typical DVD or blue laser video source, the distance from the screen at which the two pixels are indistinguishable will be less.


Repeat the eye resolution limit/distance test with the same test pattern posted, but change black and white to two different, less contrasting colors in a bitmap editor. Be sure to save in a lossless format like .bmp- .jpg will corrupt the image. The distance from the screen the distinct vertical lines disappear/merge should be less.



Also, the ability to resolve two adjacent pixels in a video source will be even less when they are moving, probably *Much* less.


So, in practice, it's probably safe to cut the distances by 20%-40%, or the resolvable pixels column by the same percentages at a given distance, in the table I posted, as it represents the absolute best case eye resolution- static image, black & white adjacent colors, which rarely happens in typical movies.


However, using the test pattern and 1:1 mapping, you can easily determine the absolute max distance your eyes can resolve the smallest detail your projector can produce in best case conditions, using the procedure outlined above. During normal color moving images, you can surely sit closer than the limit you measure for yourself, due to the color and motion issues described, taking into account the pixel structure properties of your particular projector's imaging element design( i.e. screen door, fill factor, etc)


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RandyFreeman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I want to mention a very practical way of determining the minimum viewing distance for your home theater. Walk up to the screen and look at the pixel structure of the image. Now slowly back up until you can't see the pixels. This is the minimum viewing distance for your theater.
> 
> 
> Randy




Dude, with an 8ft screen and a 1080 machine that would put most people abour 2-3 feet away, well inside 0.5 widths. You are talking viewing angles of around 90 degrees which is crazy even for a minimum distance.


I'm at 1.2 screens on my 2 8ft screens and will be at 1.0 on my large screen (12ft masked for 16:9 and 16 unmasked).


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rgb* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Here is a table I did in a spreadsheet some time ago, which expresses viewing distance in screen widths, and the number of discrete picture elements ("pixels", or alternating single pixel vertical black & white lines 1:1 mapped on a digital display) resolvable by a 20/20 human eye, which has a resolution of one arc minute.
> 
> 
> Simple geometry/trigonometry was used to compute the values.
> 
> 
> To me, the optimum viewing distance is a little closer than the distance your eyes can't resolve the individual pixels, whether the imaging device of a digital projector or the source material (1080p HD on a CRT, for example, though beam spot size may factor in).
> 
> 
> Based on the one-arc-minute eye resolution standard, it appears the 36 degree number, or about 1.54 screen widths, is just about right for 1920 horizontal pixel material on a 1080p resolving projector. Any farther, and your eyes won't discern the full detail in well authored 1080p material. Much closer, and you could start to see individual pixels, screen door, pixel structure, etc.
> 
> 
> Art S.-
> 
> 
> Looks like you need a 4K rig, since you like to sit at 1.0 widths- your eyes might be able to see at least 3440 pixels across
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW- any demo/meet planned this year?



Watch the forum for September. Plan on lots of new things, the girls will be ushers again etc. Exact date depends on the completion of the upgrades.










Art


----------



## Mark_H

Let the fun begin! Art, looking forward to some posts covering your changes.


Mark


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rgb* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Any farther, and your eyes won't discern the full detail in well authored 1080p material. Much closer, and you could start to see individual pixels, screen door, pixel structure, etc.
> 
> 
> Art S.-
> 
> 
> Looks like you need a 4K rig, since you like to sit at 1.0 widths- your eyes might be able to see at least 3440 pixels across
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW- any demo/meet planned this year?



Your acuity figures are correct re the FURTHEST distance to fully resolve 1080 images, but to say much closer and you could see pixel structure is totally wrong. Pixel structure on most 1080 displays will not be evident to well under 0.5 widths, ask ANYONE with a 1080 screen to try it. I cant see pixels on a flat white screen on my 8 footers till Im well within 3 feet and i have 20/20.


----------



## Rgb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Your acuity figures are correct re the FURTHEST distance to fully resolve 1080 images, but to say much closer and you could see pixel structure is totally wrong. Pixel structure on most 1080 displays will not be evident to well under 0.5 widths, ask ANYONE with a 1080 screen to try it. I cant see pixels on a flat white screen on my 8 footers till Im well within 3 feet and i have 20/20.



Then I guess "well under 0.5 widths" is "much closer".










Again, pixel structure of the display device is different than the minimum size detail in a video signal source.


----------



## coldmachine

Not with the 1:1 pixel mapping that more and more people are using. I am nowhere near alone in that every source i use is now 1080i or p...... HDTV,HD-DVD, BD,PC, 360,PS3. Its becoming the norm very quickly.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark_H* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Let the fun begin! Art, looking forward to some posts covering your changes.
> 
> 
> Mark



I'm following your lead....










Art


----------



## Rgb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Not with the 1:1 pixel mapping that more and more people are using. I am nowhere near alone in that every source i use is now 1080i or p...... HDTV,HD-DVD, BD,PC, 360,PS3. Its becoming the norm very quickly.



...assuming *every* 1080i/p video signal has 1920x1080 worth of detail content. Some does, some doesn't.


----------



## Rgb

As I've been trying to articulate the known science of human eye optics and physics, and apply it to home theater related resolution issues, I thought it might be useful to simply post excerpts from an industrial ergonomics textbook used in one of my graduate Industrial & Systems Engineering courses:


From "Work Design: Industrial Ergonomics". Stephan Konz, 3rd Edition, pp 301-302


By convention, "normal" vision is ability to detect an object 1 min of arc at 6m (20 ft). This is expressed as 6-6 vision (20-20 in the United States). That is, you see at 20 ft what the normal person sees at 20 ft; 20-100 vision means you see at 20 ft what the normal person sees at 100 ft.


There are several kinds of visual acuity measurements: minimum separable (gap detection), minimum perceptible (spot detection), vernier (lateral displacement of two lines), and dynamic.


The minimum gap detectable is not 1 min of arc but is about 25 arc seconds for very good contrast, long viewing times, and high luminance. Squares and spots (dark and light) can be detected even if they are very small. A dark square of 14 arc seconds vs a bright sky can be detected 75% of the time; a star subtending .06 sec of arc can be detected. Vernier acuity, the ability to detect changes in the alignment of lines, is about 2 to 3 sec of arc (an Cott and Kinkade, p. 42, 1972). Since the diameter of a single foveal cone is 10 to 40 sec of arc, these acuities demonstrate the processing ability of the retina.


Dynamic visual acuity, the ability to discriminate detail in a moving target, is important for some inspection tasks. Unfortunately an individual's static visual acuity (gap detection as measured on an eye chart) is not a good predictor of dynamic acuity (Burg and Hullbert, 1961; Ludvigh and Miller, 1959). Under most favorable conditions an object is detectable when it moves over 2 min of arc per second. Discrimination of detail in a moving target is satisfactory if the eye can "lock onto" the target. Boyce (1981, p8) says ability to lock-on worsens rapidly beyond velocities of 50 degrees per second. As any target shooter can tell you, it is easier to track a predictable target than a varying target.


Just because you can detect a small object doesn't mean that it is desirable to have objects you look at as small as possible- bigger is better. Figure 19.6 (attached below) shows the ratio of object size (theta) to the minimum object size detectable ( theta sub zero) vs. contrast. Fortuin (1970), summarizing a lifetime of work, recommends R= 2.5 for "easy seeing". That is, for easy seeing an object should be at least 2.5 times threshold size. If R>2.5, easy seeing; 1


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> John Dahl was again kind enough to answer my follow up email:
> 
> "As you observed the apparent screen size changes with seating distance. In a THX Certified cinema with film or digital cinema video the THX screen site should be nlt 36 degrees from the back row and ngt 53 degrees from the closest row. These are the limits between a majority of patrons can find a comfortable seat. This is also in a dark theater with the picture at 14-16 foot lamberts brightness."
> 
> 
> "If you like to sit in the middle and you have or plan to invest in a quality 1080p system 40 degrees would be about right (keyword is about). Try going to a quality shop and walking closer to and further away from the various images and you'll see what I mean. If you don't have a top quality image then a smaller size is called for."



I find it interesting that nobody has commented on the very telling and informative response from John Dahl. Instead there's just been a lot of THX debate. THX's "recommendations" are extremely valid because their starting point is the SMPTE (and DCI) standards (also conspicuously missing from this thread). If we are trying to faithfully recreate the cinema experience at home, then we should presume one of those goals is _to be able to achieve_ the nominal screen size in subtended viewing angle as specified for the professional cinema by SMPTE. The technical ability to even get close to that at home has only recently been achieved with the advent of several new HT technologies: good DVD HD sources, certainly the RS1, and good CIH 2.35 optics. John has given us a huge margin of size in the THX cinema specs. Quite by design, the slightly forward of middle seat in the zone he gave us is the SMPTE spec for 2.35 movies: 45 degrees. He has that covered, and plenty of margin on each side for personal preference. His response about 40 degrees is quite achievable with the new technologies. You may choose on either side of that. John's response is just about perfect.


We didn't ask for it, but he also gave us the SMPTE/DCI nominal spec for digital cinema reference white luminance.


----------



## Erik Garci

Here is an image from my site that shows viewing distances and angles specified by THX and SMPTE.


----------



## Cam Man









Awesome, Erik. Very impressive (the site, too). Thanks for that.


----------



## Brad/Viper-Fan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that nobody has commented on the very telling and informative response from John Dahl. Instead there's just been a lot of THX debate. THX's "recommendations" are extremely valid because their starting point is the SMPTE (and DCI) standards (also conspicuously missing from this thread). If we are trying to faithfully recreate the cinema experience at home, then we should presume one of those goals is _to be able to achieve_ the nominal screen size in subtended viewing angle as specified for the professional cinema by SMPTE. The technical ability to even get close to that at home has only recently been achieved with the advent of several new HT technologies: good DVD HD sources, certainly the RS1, and good CIH 2.35 optics. John has given us a huge margin of size in the THX cinema specs. Quite by design, the slightly forward of middle seat in the zone he gave us is the SMPTE spec for 2.35 movies: 45 degrees. He has that covered, and plenty of margin on each side for personal preference. His response about 40 degrees is quite achievable with the new technologies. You may choose on either side of that. John's response is just about perfect.
> 
> 
> We didn't ask for it, but he also gave us the SMPTE/DCI nominal spec for digital cinema reference white luminance.




Yes, indeed!

Thanks for noticing, and appreciating, the valuable information John Dahl was kind enough to impart, in his response to my email.


----------



## Brad/Viper-Fan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome, Erik. Very impressive (the site, too). Thanks for that.




DITTO!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome, Erik. Very impressive (the site, too). Thanks for that.



Yes thank you Erik, your site is now BOOKMARKED for future reference!!!


Mark


----------



## Rgb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Erik Garci* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Here is an image from my site that shows viewing distances and angles specified by THX and SMPTE.



Excellent tool!


Nicely done with appropriate academic-style references










I've been trying to articulate measures like PPD for years, but never hit the nail like you've done. Great job!


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Erik Garci* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Here is an image from my site that shows viewing distances and angles specified by THX and SMPTE.



Speaking of, but OT, you've got a bunch of great pages, do you have some sort of index page for them?


----------



## Erik Garci




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Speaking of, but OT, you've got a bunch of great pages, do you have some sort of index page for them?



Yes, just click on my name to view my profile , then click my "Home Page" link, which is http://home1.gte.net/res18h39/avs.htm


----------



## Rgb

I'm glad the *science* is being put back into AV Science










(...vs flaming, agendas, rants, and subjective judgements )


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Erik Garci* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Here is an image from my site that shows viewing distances and angles specified by THX and SMPTE.



Yes, fantastic , thanks !










Art


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Erik Garci* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yes, just click on my name to view my profile , then click my "Home Page" link, which is http://home1.gte.net/res18h39/avs.htm



Sweet, I'd looked but for some reason I never think to look at people's profiles


----------



## R Johnson

Some great information here! This is first time I've seen that THX has a maximum angle recommendation (of 53 degrees). Eric's PPD calculator plus its notes and references is superb! Eric's diagram graphically summarizing it all is terrific. Intuitively it's obvious that you don't want to be too far off axis, but this is the first time I learned that SMPTE has a guideline for that. And that SMPTE withdrew their traditional 30 degree guideline....


While we can design our home theaters to have seating just in the "pink" zone of Eric's diagram, I don't think any commercial theaters come anywhere near that ideal.


----------



## QQQ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Erik Garci* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Here is an image from my site that shows viewing distances and angles specified by THX and SMPTE.



Eric,


Do you know what the SMPTE recommendations are for vertical viewing angles? THX for instance recommends that the viewer should not have to look up more than 15%.


----------



## Erik Garci




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Johnson* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Some great information here! This is first time I've seen that THX has a maximum angle recommendation (of 53 degrees).



Has THX officially published the 53 degree (1 screen width) recommendation?


----------



## Erik Garci




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *QQQ* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Do you know what the SMPTE recommendations are for vertical viewing angles?



SMPTE 196M does not explicitly specify the vertical viewing angles, but they can be calculated. They are 28 degrees max (closest) and 14 degrees min (farthest), approximately. The vertical viewing angle is the angle from the viewer to the top and bottom of the screen.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Erik Garci* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Has THX officially published the 53 degree (1 screen width) recommendation?



I don't think so, and why I asked for a link if it has been on page 1...


Mark


----------



## R Johnson

I saw the "ngt" (not greater than) 53 degree number in this June 1 posting. As far as I know, it's not been officially published.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad/Viper-Fan* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> John Dahl was again kind enough to answer my follow up email:
> 
> 
> "As you observed the apparent screen size changes with seating distance. In a THX Certified cinema with film or digital cinema video the THX screen site should be nlt 36 degrees from the back row and ngt 53 degrees from the closest row. These are the limits between a majority of patrons can find a comfortable seat. This is also in a dark theater with the picture at 14-16 foot lamberts brightness."
> 
> ....
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John Dahl
> 
> Senior Fellow
> 
> Director, Education
> 
> THX Ltd.


----------



## Erik Garci

THX's 36-to-53 degrees is equivalent to a viewing distance range of 2.40H to 3.68H for 'scope, which is almost perfectly centered within SMPTE's slightly greater range of 2.00H to 4.00H. For example, in the diagram, THX's range excludes the closest and farthest rows of SMPTE's range.


----------



## CAVX

Erik,


The SMPTE guide lines are based on film projection. Has there been any update for D-Cinema. or are they considered the same?


Mark


----------



## Erik Garci




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Erik,
> 
> 
> The SMPTE guide lines are based on film projection. Has there been any update for D-Cinema. or are they considered the same?
> 
> 
> Mark



I'm not aware of any update. I think the guideline can be used for D-Cinema.


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> I'm not aware of any update. I think the guideline can be used for D-Cinema.



But 4K digital cinema is coming. I don't think the parameters will change; the picture will just be more impressive at its current size.


----------



## Murilomms

Great thread, I've learned a lot here.


I'm going to replace my 69" 1.78:1 screen for a screen in 2.35:1 aspect ratio and I'm in doubt about the viewing angle.


I have:


Sanyo PLV-Z2000 (I will buy Panny AE3000 thanks to memory lens)

Sony BDP-S550 Blu-ray player


My room is small, but is dedicated and here inside my wife is not allowed to say anything










My distance to the screen is about 2.6m and as I told my actual screen has 69" in 1.78:1 aspect ratio.


Two problems here: 1) 1.85:1 movies are too big in this situation. 2) 2.35:1 movies are too small in this situation.


I prefer 2.35:1 movies and I saw some rooms with 2.35:1 screens and I loved. Very cool and nothing is closer to a theater than this.


well, let see some pictures:



















http://home1.gte.net/res18h39/calculator.htm 


Today when I'm watching a 2.35:1 movie my screen has 65" inside the 1.78:1 screen and my viewing angle is 32o.


I'm trying to have a viewing angle in about 36o and to get this what I need to do is to buy a screen with 72" in 2.35:1 aspect ratio.


With 72" (2.35:1) my distance to screen will be 1.54x the width of screen. And here my viewing angle will be 35.9o.


With 73" (2.35:1) my viewing angle will be 36.3o


With 74" (2.35:1) my viewing angle will be 36.8o

*Which one of these viewing angles you think is better for my situation?*

*What is the biggest viewing angle that you recommends for my small room?*

http://www.carltonbale.com/home-thea...er-calculator/


----------



## millerwill

Has there ever been a POLL of the viewing angles (or viewing distance/screen width ratio) that people with 2.35 screens prefer? There is obviously a great deal of personal preference involved, but it would be useful (esp for those of us contemplating going to a 2.35/2.40 setup) to have some feeling for what the distribution is.


In this vein, I was surprised when perusing Alan Gouger's 'sticky' with the picture galley of CH home theaters: I saw many quite elegant rooms, but the screens in most cases seemed quite small. I thought the big deal of CH was to have the immersive experience that came with the great breath of the pic that cinemascope afforded. But I saw very few large screens, e.g., > 10 ft wide, or viewing angles arrangements > 36 deg. I thought I would see many more like Art's 1.0 SW (= 53 deg viewing angle).


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/15137150
> 
> 
> I saw very few large screens, e.g., > 10 ft wide, or viewing angles arrangements > 36 deg. I thought I would see many more like Art's 1.0 SW (= 53 deg viewing angle).



We have a 10Ft wide 2:35 screen and we sit 11ft from the screen when watching a movie on blu ray, very sweet. The problem is with DVD we need to push the seat to be at least 13 feet otherwise the picture is not very good.

Video Equipment: StewartFilmScreen 2:35 FireHawk G3 and JVC DLA-RS2


----------



## millerwill

wse: Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Ericsson

 http://www.avforums.com/forums/avfor...er-2008-a.html 


AVForums in the UK have a podcast on anamorphic and an Interview with THX about standards, seating & angles and home systems using different screen sizes and aspect ratios.


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wse* /forum/post/15137288
> 
> 
> We have a 10Ft wide 2:35 screen and we sit 11ft from the screen when watching a movie on blu ray, very sweet. The problem is with DVD we need to push the seat to be at least 13 feet otherwise the picture is not very good.
> 
> Video Equipment: StewartFilmScreen 2:35 FireHawk G3 and JVC DLA-RS2



Just installed my 10' wide 2:40 screen today. I'll be sitting (first row) 14' away. Hopefully this distance is good for regular DVD viewing w/ it's limited resolution. I know w/ Blu-ray - I could sit as close as 12' w/o problem (as I've tested this distance at EHX on an even larger screen).


Won't know for sure till the RS20 arrives


----------



## Murilomms

Well, I decided to buy a 2.40:1 screen with 73.8".


My distance to the screen is 2.60m and my viewing angle will be 36.8.


The screen will be made as follow:











The others sizes and viewing angles in this screen will be:


1.78:1 = 58" (27.7)

1.85:1 = 59.7" (28.8)

2.35:1 = 72.5" (36.1)


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Erik Garci* /forum/post/10918624
> 
> 
> I'm not aware of any update. I think the guideline can be used for D-Cinema.



Thanks Erik,


So if that is correct, we should be right using theses specs in the home as well...


Mark


----------



## Aussie Bob

I've never seen so much ado about nothing!


You're all wandering around, stressing about which angle is "officially" OK. It doesn't matter how many visual scientists THX or whomever had working for them when they came up with their specifications. It only matters what pleases the viewer.


There seems to be an obsession among some here to get everything exactly perfect. But there is no perfection. The movies aren't shot perfectly. They're not edited perfectly. They're very rarely shown perfectly... yet audiences seem to enjoy them just the same (or not, as the case may be). To think that unendingly, slavishly, so seriously discussing diagrams posted on a web site with funny lines drawn on them will make you happy is like a drug addict looking for a bigger high. The end will always be disappointment.


Haven't you all seen enough Star Wars movies to realise to have to "follow the Force"? If only Lucas had taken his own advice with the later episodes and the recent Indy movie. It was Lucas who had the crystal skull, not the aliens.


This endless pursuit of some kind of "ideal" viewing angle, or an extra quarter of a pixel's perfection, or the precise seating distance, or the perfect aspect ratio. It's all so pointless, guys. Just enjoy yourselves and stop making rods for your back by listening to what others think you should be doing, especially when it comes to subjective, artistic appreciation. Getting the sngle right won't make the movie any better (again, just ask Lucas).


It's your HT (and your money you spent to equip it). Do what you like with it.


----------



## Murilomms

We known that what THX says is not a "law", is just a guideline










In my case, in spite of what THX says, I have tested in my room those viewing angles. And I have choosed the viewing angle that gives more pleasure to me.


----------



## thebland

What is the mathematical formula to determine viewing angle (assuming you have the lengths of all the legs of the triangle)??


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> What is the mathematical formula to determine viewing angle (assuming you have the lengths of all the legs of the triangle)??



I used to know it (it's fairly simple trig), but I've become spoiled by the calculators










The moral of this thread is that there are indeed many technical variables to consider in front projection










IMO, the type of design that Art has covers all bases. The front row is a bit closer than the SMPTE nominal HVA, the second row at or maybe slightly under.


----------



## Erik Garci

angle = 2 * atan ( 0.5 * width / distance )


----------



## Person99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/15137150
> 
> 
> In this vein, I was surprised when perusing Alan Gouger's 'sticky' with the picture galley of CH home theaters: I saw many quite elegant rooms, but the screens in most cases seemed quite small. I thought the big deal of CH was to have the immersive experience that came with the great breath of the pic that cinemascope afforded. But I saw very few large screens, e.g., > 10 ft wide, or viewing angles arrangements > 36 deg. I thought I would see many more like Art's 1.0 SW (= 53 deg viewing angle).



I think there are alot of > 36 degree. My primary is 45.5.


As for > 10 ft screen, not many projectors are bright enough to support this size screen when properly calibrated. If you want to have 14ftL, most PJs will require you stay 10ft or less (I'm at 9.5 foot wide).


----------



## Murilomms

My new 2.40:1 screen










74" and I'm 2.60m far from the screen.

























































The old screen (69" 1.78:1) x new screen (74" 2.40:1)
























































I'm very happy


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S

CAVX....sorry if not the right place to try, but I'd like to talk to you about a lens.

Thanks.


----------



## Mark_H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/15137150
> 
> 
> In this vein, I was surprised when perusing Alan Gouger's 'sticky' with the picture galley of CH home theaters: I saw many quite elegant rooms, but the screens in most cases seemed quite small. I thought the big deal of CH was to have the immersive experience that came with the great breath of the pic that cinemascope afforded. But I saw very few large screens, e.g., > 10 ft wide, or viewing angles arrangements > 36 deg. I thought I would see many more like Art's 1.0 SW (= 53 deg viewing angle).



15' wide screen. Primary seating 1.1x width from screen. Viewing angle ~48.9 degrees.


Mark


----------



## Vern Dias

As sad as it seems, there are more than a few HT owners that view their HT as an opulent setting for their TV set







. Even those that do have projectors still seem to want to view their screen at 3x to 5x screen width. With those kind of viewing angles, it might as well BE a TV set.


I'm with Mark_H.


5'x13' 2.65:1 screen with a 1.1x viewing distance.


Vern


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark_H* /forum/post/15236844
> 
> 
> 15' wide screen. Primary seating 1.1x width from screen. Viewing angle ~48.9 degrees.
> 
> 
> Mark



When you guys list your viewing angle....that is the degree to which you can sit away from center and still have full view? Or is that the angle to which you sit from the screen?(like off to the side?)


----------



## Mark_H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *E-A-G-L-E-S* /forum/post/15237538
> 
> 
> When you guys list your viewing angle....that is the degree to which you can sit away from center and still have full view? Or is that the angle to which you sit from the screen?(like off to the side?)



The viewing angle I listed from my head to the sides of the screen...


Mark


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S

Oh o.k., thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/15194544
> 
> 
> I've never seen so much ado about nothing!
> 
> 
> You're all wandering around, stressing about which angle is "officially" OK. It doesn't matter how many visual scientists THX or whomever had working for them when they came up with their specifications. It only matters what pleases the viewer.
> 
> 
> There seems to be an obsession among some here to get everything exactly perfect. But there is no perfection. The movies aren't shot perfectly. They're not edited perfectly. They're very rarely shown perfectly... yet audiences seem to enjoy them just the same (or not, as the case may be). To think that unendingly, slavishly, so seriously discussing diagrams posted on a web site with funny lines drawn on them will make you happy is like a drug addict looking for a bigger high. The end will always be disappointment.
> 
> 
> Haven't you all seen enough Star Wars movies to realise to have to "follow the Force"? If only Lucas had taken his own advice with the later episodes and the recent Indy movie. It was Lucas who had the crystal skull, not the aliens.
> 
> 
> This endless pursuit of some kind of "ideal" viewing angle, or an extra quarter of a pixel's perfection, or the precise seating distance, or the perfect aspect ratio. It's all so pointless, guys. Just enjoy yourselves and stop making rods for your back by listening to what others think you should be doing, especially when it comes to subjective, artistic appreciation. Getting the sngle right won't make the movie any better (again, just ask Lucas).
> 
> 
> It's your HT (and your money you spent to equip it). Do what you like with it.



Fantastic post. In my case, violating the THX standards has brought me many hundreds of hours of engaging viewing pleasure.


Art


----------



## taffman

I totally agree with Aussie Bob's post. This persuit of perfection is a little ridiculous (and can get ridiculously expensive!). In the end, the viewing satisfaction all comes down to the movie itself. It does'nt matter how superior your projector is to everybody else's, whether or not you zoom or use an Isco 3 lens, if the movie is no good no one is going to give a hoot. Lets face it, the majority of modern movies are pretty unsatisfying, you often feel at the end of the film that you have been robbed of 2 hours of your life. Certainly, most of todays movies are not worth owning, at best they hold up for a single viewing. That is why my film collection is 95% standard DVD's of hollywood classics, because the stories are great and the acting and film craftmanship is so superior, and the photography, be it black and white or Technicolor is glorious. So these old films can be viewed repeatedly and they never lose their entertainment value, so they are great to own. But almost none of them are available on BD. So my HT viewing is overwhelmingly standard DVD in 1.33 aspect ratio. That is not to say that I do not appreciate 2.35 movies, which are undeniably more spectacular to look at. But it still all comes down to the film itself and how good it is. So I would say that viewing satisfaction is 95% the film, and 5% the assocaited presentation technology.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/15238518
> 
> 
> I totally agree with Aussie Bob's post.



Yes and no. I agree that it is the final enjoyment that's the important part, that being "too close" or "too far" in relation to the specifications recommendations is utterly unimportant if you're happy. That having inaccurate color, oversaturated primaries, or "sub-optimal" reproduction in any other way is unimportant if you're happy.


However that doesn't mean the recommendations of professionals are worthless and should just be ignored. THX, SMPTE, Fox and all the other professional groups have come up with recommendations/standards for viewing angle/brightness/etc after painstaking research. Their recommendations do have merit.


If you're setting up your first true home theater, it's very helpful to have an idea where to start for things like target screen brightness, target viewing angle, target max sound level, etc. Standards and recommendations of those who are happy with their theaters are great resources for those who don't have the _personal experience_ to know what makes them happy.



> Quote:
> This persuit of perfection is a little ridiculous (and can get ridiculously expensive!).



That's a matter of opinion, one I disagree with. Many of us here get significant enjoyment out of that pursuit. For a lot of it, we enjoy the journey, not just the destination.



> Quote:
> In the end, the viewing satisfaction all comes down to the movie itself.



Not entirely though. I know for me, issues/limitations of my display can easily affect my enjoyment/satisfaction of the movie itself.



> Quote:
> It does'nt matter how superior your projector is to everybody else's, whether or not you zoom or use an Isco 3 lens, if the movie is no good no one is going to give a hoot.



We don't do this for any "one", we do this for ourselves. And for a lot of us here, knowing that our setup could be improved is enough to for us to want that improvement. It's not about a pissing match between us and others. We don't buy more expensive projectors or expensive lenses, or go through hours (or $$$) of calibration so we can say we've got a better setup than others.


When I look at what I'm going to buy for my HT, I don't look at anyone else but myself, and what I want. I bought my projector, and my lens, and my HT seats, and my acoustic pannels, and my SSP, amp, speakers, redid my lighting, built a riser, not for any reason but my own enjoyment.


Sure I could have gone cheaper, but I wouldn't be as happy. Of course even then, my setup is less expensive than many people's here. But that doesn't bother me either.



> Quote:
> Lets face it, the majority of modern movies are pretty unsatisfying, you often feel at the end of the film that you have been robbed of 2 hours of your life. Certainly, most of todays movies are not worth owning, at best they hold up for a single viewing. That is why my film collection is 95% standard DVD's of hollywood classics, because the stories are great and the acting and film craftmanship is so superior, and the photography, be it black and white or Technicolor is glorious.



Speak for yourself, there have been a lot of great movies out in the last decade or two. There's been a lot of crap too, but I don't think that's any different than any other period in history.



> Quote:
> So these old films can be viewed repeatedly and they never lose their entertainment value, so they are great to own. But almost none of them are available on BD. So my HT viewing is overwhelmingly standard DVD in 1.33 aspect ratio. That is not to say that I do not appreciate 2.35 movies, which are undeniably more spectacular to look at.



And if I look at my collection, it's overwhelmingly scope and most are available on BD (though most I purchased before BD). So what's that say about anything? Nothing at all, beyond I optomized my theater for the AR which I view most (and such that all other ARs are reproduced in a satsifying way).



> Quote:
> But it still all comes down to the film itself and how good it is. So I would say that viewing satisfaction is 95% the film, and 5% the assocaited presentation technology.



A good presentation can't save a bad film, but a bad presentation certainly can hamper a good one, likewise an exceptional presentation can only enhance the best films.


Make no mistake presentation certainly makes a difference, sometimes a big one. The best recent example for me is probably Speed Racer. I know I had low expectations for the movie, and of the friends I had over to see it, most were expecting a bad movie as well.


However Speed Racer on BD, with a 1.3x with viewing ratio on a scope screen with great 7.1 audio was a thrill. It won't win any awards, and the critics hate it, but I don't care. On my setup it was great fun to watch, enough that I bought it (after initially renting it) and my friends all agreed with me, they all enjoyed it (and were surprised by that fact).


----------



## Aussie Bob

Have to say I liked Ghost Rider (against my better judgement). So hokey. So bad, it was good (which I think was the intent).


Having said that, I wanna see vistas. Where is Lawrence? Ryan (and his daughter)? Did Dr. Zhivago really die of a heart attack, or is he still practising somewhere south of the Urals?


BD is absolutely _made_ for big films, with lots of rich detail. Yet all we seem to get is murky, mopey, squalid soap operas so far. Or unfunny "comedies". A visit to my local BD retailer is usually a very disappointing experience.


Take a look at the list of upcomings: hardly inspiring... http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/releasedates.html


----------



## John Ballentine

I sure agree about the "unfunny" comedies of late (guess I'm from the Caddyshack, Used Cars, Christmas Vacation generation).


----------



## taffman

I think the marketeers have decided to aim BD releases at the adolescent PS3 crowd. As Bob says, a survey of BD releases at your local store is a very disappointing experience - all stupid comedies, or unending blood and guts violence movies. It does'nt look like there will ever be a big number of BD releases of the great Hollywood classics. For those, you are going to have to stay with standard DVD's. Hardly a good omen for BD's future.


----------

