# Seating distances



## Wardog555 (11 mo ago)

Hey guys.

I want to ask what is everyone's seating distance and what screen sizes do you use. This can be either a tv or projector.

I'm looking for ideas for an imax experience for my future home theater and I will be using both a 65 inch cx oled and a 1080p projector with a screen size of 133 inches with 16:9 aspect ratio.

I know there's recommend distances etc but what I have found that it comes down to rather a personal preference.

Many thanks


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

You should be able to find answers at one of these links:






home theater screen size seating distance at DuckDuckGo


DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.




duckduckgo.com





Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Da Wiz (May 8, 2019)

It is **** DIFFICULT to produce satisfyingly bright images on a 133 inch wide projection screen.
You will want to sit 7 to 7.5 feet from the OLED TV to get a cinematic viewing angle
1080p projection on a 133-inch wide screen will require a viewing distance of about 13-14 feet. Sitting that far from the screen and speakers means the REFLECTED sound in your room will be more powerful than the DIRECTLY-RADIATED sound in your room. That is unavoidable unless you get a smaller projection screen that allows you to place the screen close enough that the loudspeakers are no more than 9 feet from the main seat. This will insure your directly radiated sound from various speakers will be louder than the more chaotic reflected sound from more distant speakers.
A big 1080p image is not going to impress you as much as a UHD/HDR image on the OLED TV. If the speakers are the same distance at the OLED TV (7 to 7.5 feet), the directly radiated sound will be louder than the reflected sound by quite a bit... so you will find that soundfield to be quite enveloping compared to sitting 13-14 feet from the loudspeakers where the more diffuse/chaotic reflected sound will dominate what you hear at the main seat.
Projection is going to disappear because it's almost worthless for HDR content. Today, a good flat screen TV produces brighter and more colorful images than ANY movie theater. Movie theaters know they can't exist on big screen size only. So theaters are beginning to replace projectors with large LED displays that require no projector. This is expensive for theaters because putting speakers behind LED screens is not possible so far. So if a theater changes to a direct view display, they have to put speakers above/below or left/right of any self-illuminating displays. But theaters MUST have this type of display to compete for audiences with home theaters being possible today that look better than theaters.
You should consider a SINGLE flat screen TV of 85-inches, like the Vizio PQX TV (so far only available in 85-inch size, for $3300-ish) and give up on the idea of the 133-inch wide projection screen.
You will need a projector with 4000+ lumens capability to make a 133-inch wide screen bright enough, even for SDR content. This will be quite an expensive projector if there even IS a 1080p projector for MOVIES (home theater) with a REAL 4000 lumen output. I just evaluated a JVC projector that produced 3000 lumens (4K resolution) and cost $26,000. And preferred a $2000 Sony OLED 65-inch TV as long as the viewing angles were the same for the TV and projection screen. As projectors get less expensive, the specs for lumens and related brightness and screen size recommendations become more problematic and over-stated. Also understand that if you start with a projector that produces 16 fL for 100% white in 1080p/SDR content, by the time the projection lamp has 2000 hours on it, the on-screen illumination will only be 8 fL, half the light you started with. The recommended range for 1080/SDR content is 12 FL to 20 fL. 8 fL sneaks up on you over time and you don't realize how dim images have gotten... unless you have a flat screen TV around to remind you. That Vizio PQX TV can produce a peak white of up to 850 fL which is absolutely necessary to be able to display the wider range of colors you get with UHD/HDR content. A $4000 projector on a 133-inch wide screen MIGHT produce 16 fL if your screen has more gain than 1.0. If you have an acoustically transparent screen, even if it is rated at 1.5 gain, the REAL gain will be no more than .85... acoustically transparent screens ALWAYS lose light compared to solid screens.
Sit 8 feet from an 85-inch flat screen TV and you'll get magnificent better-then-cinema images. And you won't have to move the speakers back for projection and forward for viewing the OLED TV. You can keep the OLED for times when you might want to set it up at 7 feet away to keep a big viewing angle. But you may not even care about the OLED once you see the 85-inch Vizio that has almost 800 local dimming zones.


----------



## Wardog555 (11 mo ago)

Appreciate the comments guys. It's really something to think about. One day I hope to get a 4k hdr projector.

As for the screen size it's 133 inches diagonal not the width as you thought. That puts it at around 3 meters wide.

I'll give you the room dimensions where this setup will be. 3.6 meters wide. 4 meters long. 2.7 meters high

The 65 oled will be the primary display especially for 4k content and occasional gaming.

It will be a 5.1.4 Dolby atmos setup to start with and i will be planning for a 7.2.4 for the future.


----------



## the kid (Nov 15, 2013)

I have a 106 inch screen. I sit ~9 - 9.5 feet away. Looks good to me. I actually wouldn't mind a little closer, but I have others at home to 'tell me about it' for being too close. My thoughts is to sit where the picture fills up my 'straight-ahead- view without having to turn my head to see the left / right edge of the picture.

Not to sound prideful or arrogant, but I have never followed the viewing rules as I am the one sitting in my room and I want to experience the view to what I think it should be.


----------



## david yurik (Feb 17, 2013)

I sit 9' from 125" screen. The MLP in the front row is immersive. You don't have to move your head to see everything but you do shift your focus side to side.

The second row eyeball view is another 3' back and works great. It's much closer to the general recommendations from many websites.

Dave


----------



## Wardog555 (11 mo ago)

Thanks to the last two comments that actually answered my question!

I definitely agree on the point when you don't actually follow the distance guides/recommendations. 

I'm planing on a 2 meter distance for my 65 inch cx and planing the speaker locations around that!

Appreciate the comments regardless!


----------



## bassman_soundking (Nov 4, 2008)

the kid said:


> I have a 106 inch screen. I sit ~9 - 9.5 feet away. Looks good to me. I actually wouldn't mind a little closer, but I have others at home to 'tell me about it' for being too close. My thoughts is to sit where the picture fills up my 'straight-ahead- view without having to turn my head to see the left / right edge of the picture.
> 
> Not to sound prideful or arrogant, but I have never followed the viewing rules as I am the one sitting in my room and I want to experience the view to what I think it should be.


My screen was 106" also, and I sat 9-10ft away also.
My mindset was identical, as long as I see the whole image at once Im not too close.
And as long as I dont get a headache 🤣


----------



## nathan_h (Feb 19, 2009)

Wardog555 said:


> Hey guys.
> 
> I want to ask what is everyone's seating distance and what screen sizes do you use. This can be either a tv or projector.
> 
> ...



I tend to error on the side of trying to reproduce industry stands in my viewing and listening.

(This doesn't mean I always follow the standards. Theater reference level for audio is too loud for me, for example.)

But it's worthwhile to know what those standards are, so you start from a known specification and go from there.

All of the standards are based on geometry, a bit about resolution of sources, and while they may specify an ideal ratio, they also allow for a range of what is acceptable.

(Additional factors like whether it is a 2.4 or 16:9 screen can come into play, as well.)










And a useful discussion: 









Home theater viewing angles, distances and sightlines


Horizontal Viewing Angles The horizontal viewing angle is the angle subtended by a straight line from each side of the screen to the seating position. The main two standards in the commercial world are the SMPTE and THX specifications as summarized in the diagram below: 36 degrees from the last...




www.acousticfrontiers.com


----------



## rdcollns (Oct 13, 2013)

I have a 150" projection screen and sit about 11' from the screen. It is 3200 lumens 1080p, extremely vivid, and bright enough to watch with daylight in the room and you can't see any pixels at that distance. We have a large 4K HDR LED screen in another room, and nobody cares, the projector is where it's at. I personally think you want to sit about the same distance as the width of the screen. Your peripheral vision can catch everything, but you still have to turn your head a little to really catch all the action, putting you in the middle of the action. As a side note, I demoed a couple of 4K projectors in my house two years ago. The detail was a little sharper as you would expect, unfortunately the technology wasn't quite there. The images were stunning when everything clicked right, but they had lots of issues with the image in challenging scenes. The image quality (minus resolution) is much better on my 1080p projector. I'm sure it's gotten better and I'll upgrade when my current bulb wears out.


----------



## Da Wiz (May 8, 2019)

Wardog555 said:


> Appreciate the comments guys. It's really something to think about. One day I hope to get a 4k hdr projector.
> 
> As for the screen size it's 133 inches diagonal not the width as you thought. That puts it at around 3 meters wide.
> 
> ...


The fact that the screen is closer to 10 feet wide is inconsequential... everything I posted still applies.


----------



## Da Wiz (May 8, 2019)

Wardog555 said:


> Thanks to the last two comments that actually answered my question!
> 
> I definitely agree on the point when you don't actually follow the distance guides/recommendations.
> 
> ...


So your method of solving problems is NOT to use accurate information, but, instead, to ask people who aren't HT pros and who don't have the depth of experience of a 30 industry professional and when you get an answer you like, whether it is right or wrong... that's not the method to use to get good results.


----------



## Da Wiz (May 8, 2019)

rdcollns said:


> I have a 150" projection screen and sit about 11' from the screen. It is 3200 lumens 1080p, extremely vivid, and bright enough to watch with daylight in the room and you can't see any pixels at that distance. We have a large 4K HDR LED screen in another room, and nobody cares, the projector is where it's at. I personally think you want to sit about the same distance as the width of the screen. Your peripheral vision can catch everything, but you still have to turn your head a little to really catch all the action, putting you in the middle of the action. As a side note, I demoed a couple of 4K projectors in my house two years ago. The detail was a little sharper as you would expect, unfortunately the technology wasn't quite there. The images were stunning when everything clicked right, but they had lots of issues with the image in challenging scenes. The image quality (minus resolution) is much better on my 1080p projector. I'm sure it's gotten better and I'll upgrade when my current bulb wears out.


Let's talk about lumens... I have never seen a projector that would produce remotely close to 3200 Lumens when calibrated to be accurate unless the projector costs more than $10,000. Any less expensive projector that the manufacturer says has 3200 lumens, that will be a giant lie. Epson just successfully sued a manufacturerer of cheap projectors who were claiming stupidly high lumen values for their projectors that sell for less than $1000. Until you have put a light meter on a 100% white test pattern, you won't have any idea how bright or dim your screen is. I walked into a theater where the guy told me that the projector and screen were chosen because they would deliver 20 fL with a fresh light bulb and a partially closed iris, and still produce 12 fL with 2500-3000 hours on the lamp. It turns out, he overestimated by a bit... he had 4 fL with a 3000 hour lamp and 8 fL with a new lamp. It should never go below 12 fL for 100% white.

I have a $25,000 4K projector, an $8000 4K projector, a $4000 1080p pixel shifter UHD compatible but at 3K, not really 4K. None are purchased by me, but they are here in my theater room and are able to be used any time, just by turning one of them on. The brightest projector (the $25,000 one with laser-phosphor light engine powered by numerous blue lasers to produce red, green, and blue light) can produce about 50 fL on an 82-inch wide 16:9 screen with 1.0 gain. There is also an 85-inch LCD/LED TV that can produce 3000 nits, which is 900+ fL (remember, the $25k projector produces 50 fL for comparison) for 100% white in UHD/HDR mode. NOBODY wants to watch ANYTHING on a projector here. The projector's light output is FAR below the TV's light output. The TV can produce about 50% more colors than the projector because it can reach 3000 nits that the projector can't HOPE to get close to. Between the black blacks of this TV (almost 800 local dimming zones) and the high luminance capability, the TV with a good UHD/HDR source makes the projectors look pitiful when displaying the same content side by side. How do you get RGB from only blue lasers? Some of the lasers are reserved FOR blue light. All the others are aimed at a small rotating disc that is coated in a phosphor that glows brightly yellow when hit with numerous blue lasers. That yellow light is split into green and red light. This is how cinema projectors have been made for 10 years or more. But some started appearing 5 years ago as home projectors.

Projection is dying as we speak. Every week another theater or two removes their projector and installs a direct-view LED screen. In 10 years, there will be few or no projectors in movie theaters in large geographic areas around the world. Projectors are ENTIRELY unsuitable for displaying UHD/HDR content impressively. If a projector produced enough light to hit 900+ fL on-screen, there would be so much light reflecting around the room that the projector would wash-out its own images.


----------



## Wardog555 (11 mo ago)

Da Wiz said:


> So your method of solving problems is NOT to use accurate information, but, instead, to ask people who aren't HT pros and who don't have the depth of experience of a 30 industry professional and when you get an answer you like, whether it is right or wrong... that's not the method to use to get good results.


I was asking for real world experiences to get ideas. It's not only just following a guide even though they are helpful to know.

I've since changed my plan from 2 meters as that's a bit too close for 133 inches.

I saw your suggested distance of minimum 13 feet but that is literally the maximum length of the room itself


----------



## MiraEdorra21 (7 mo ago)

No matter which size of LCD your using, this chart will be helpful to everyone.







​


----------



## Wardog555 (11 mo ago)

MiraEdorra21 said:


> No matter which size of LCD your using, this chart will be helpful to everyone.
> View attachment 175721
> ​


Lol this is severely outdated. It's impossible for me to sit that far from any tv in my house for a 64 inch according to this guide. It even mentions CRT technology!


----------



## rvsixer (Oct 19, 2008)

Do I really need to replace my 65" LCD @ 78" viewing distance with a 19" LCD  ???


----------



## rdcollns (Oct 13, 2013)

Da Wiz said:


> Let's talk about lumens... I have never seen a projector that would produce remotely close to 3200 Lumens when calibrated .....


No idea how many lumens my under $1K 3200 lumen projector actually outputs. The measured output is completely irrelevant as I can watch it in daylight and it works great, and at night I dial it way down and it looks even better.

I love the idea behind calibration and color accuracy, but I am talking strictly about the experience in our house, and comparison to friends, neighbors, etc. I doubt I know anyone with a display of any kind that costs over $10K, let alone anyone who would hire someone to calibrate their display for them. In my experience, the color, depth, brightness of my cheap projector match the quality of most LED displays and certainly hit a quality level where guests are always impressed. I did a fair amount of work tweaking the settings to get them dialed in, but only using my own eyes. The black levels are obviously not as good, but once you start watching they are definitely good enough that you do not notice at all. The best part for me, though, is that the projected image is far more pleasant to watch. There is something fatiguing about watching a light source beaming straight at you, vs watching a projected image. I don't see myself ever switching over. That, and there is probably no way to bring an 85" display down the stairs into my current theater room, let alone 150", which is the size I really want. Maybe when they improve the tile TVs, they'll find a way to make them less fatiguing as well, but it will likely never be affordable, let along fit in a little box UPS will conveniently ship. I've been using projectors for over 20 years now, and have converted a number of people to do the same. I don't know anyone who has switched back to panel displays for their primary movie room.

Time to get back to my baseball game, the players and strike zone are life size, this is great.


----------



## philbanks (6 mo ago)

Hi

Sent from my Infinix HOT 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Da Wiz (May 8, 2019)

MiraEdorra21 said:


> No matter which size of LCD your using, this chart will be helpful to everyone.
> View attachment 175721
> ​


This chart is MASSIVELY out of date--not useful since the 1990s. They want you to sit 10-feet 8-inches from a 32-inch TV????? For 1080p you would sit maybe 3 feet from a 32-inch TV and 1.5 feet from a 32-inch TV with 4K resolution. Resolution is the key factor that determines viewing distance. This chart is for CRT 480p viewing recommendations... something NOBODY should still be using in 2022.


----------



## Da Wiz (May 8, 2019)

rdcollns said:


> No idea how many lumens my under $1K 3200 lumen projector actually outputs. The measured output is completely irrelevant as I can watch it in daylight and it works great, and at night I dial it way down and it looks even better.
> 
> I love the idea behind calibration and color accuracy, but I am talking strictly about the experience in our house, and comparison to friends, neighbors, etc. I doubt I know anyone with a display of any kind that costs over $10K, let alone anyone who would hire someone to calibrate their display for them. In my experience, the color, depth, brightness of my cheap projector match the quality of most LED displays and certainly hit a quality level where guests are always impressed. I did a fair amount of work tweaking the settings to get them dialed in, but only using my own eyes. The black levels are obviously not as good, but once you start watching they are definitely good enough that you do not notice at all. The best part for me, though, is that the projected image is far more pleasant to watch. There is something fatiguing about watching a light source beaming straight at you, vs watching a projected image. I don't see myself ever switching over. That, and there is probably no way to bring an 85" display down the stairs into my current theater room, let alone 150", which is the size I really want. Maybe when they improve the tile TVs, they'll find a way to make them less fatiguing as well, but it will likely never be affordable, let along fit in a little box UPS will conveniently ship. I've been using projectors for over 20 years now, and have converted a number of people to do the same. I don't know anyone who has switched back to panel displays for their primary movie room.
> 
> Time to get back to my baseball game, the players and strike zone are life size, this is great.


A $1,000 projector rated at 3200 lumens likely has 1000 ACTUAL lumens--unless it is a "business" projector designed for PowerPoint presentations... those can be quite bright, and incredibly inaccurate for cinema or TV. "I can watch it in daytime"-- you can watch ANY visible image in daylight. But it's not going to look half decent. If all you need is what you have now and nothing better, why post here at all?

There is NOTHING superior about projected video images. Nothing at all. To the point that movie theaters are even going to stop using projectors because they cannot achieve images as incredible as TVs consumers can purchase and use at home for $1000. Projection will be DEAD in 10 years. And rightfully so. The $1,000 projector has **** for a lens and few pixels compared to an average TV. The lens in a $1k projector will degrade the image so much it looks out of focus compared to a $1k Hisense TV. TVs have no lens to degrade the images. A lens in a $10,000 projector even degrades images compared to direct-view displays. In a $1K projector, the lens budget is a fraction of the lens budget in a $10K projector. So the $1K projector degrades images even more. Some of the lens errors creep-in as red, green, and blue not focusing sharply at the same distance. This causes not being able to find "perfect" focus because the focus never optimizes. 1 or more colors are always somewhat out of focus. Without a lens, direct view TVs have ever pixel perfectly sharp, corner to corner. Projectors have about half the light in the corners of the screen compared to the center of the screen so you can't even get projectors to illuminate the screen uniformly. A $50,000 projector I measured had 25% less light in the corners than in the center of the screen. A $3000 projector I measured was almost 50% dimmer in the corners than in the center. I don't even want to know how bad a $1K projector can be. I was asked to evaluate a $900 projector from a major manufacturer and I found it to produce ugly images that would satisfy nobody who knew what they were looking at. Bad black levels, uneven illumination, no auto-iris to improve contrast ratio, bad motion quality, unable to deliver immersive images, no headroom for white (for specular highlights) and only 1/2 as much light as it SHOULD have and when it is time to replace the lamp, it will be delivering only 1/4 the amount of light you need to make decent images. If none of that bothers you... proceed with your plans, they can't miss these targets.


----------



## rdcollns (Oct 13, 2013)

Da Wiz said:


> ....why post here at all?


Because I disagreed with nearly every opinion you stated in your first post. It is extremely easy to provide a satisfying image at 133". 

You make a lot of good points, a projector will not technically measure as well as a typical flat panel, high quality lenses can provide much better images than the plastic lenses in a $1000 projector (my last projector had a lovely glass lens, and was a joy to setup), I agree that an iris is necessary on most projectors but that feature is now widely available. And your viewing distances are great suggestions.

I firmly believe that a projected 133" image is far more satisfying than a large flat panel. 4000 lumens might be nice, but is definitely not a requirement. You clearly don't like projectors, and have some decent reasons why they don't work for you. But in my opinion, they still provide a much better experience for the in home cinema. I regularly have friends who own shiny new OLED screens comment on how much better the experience is with my projector. You might not be able to take a measurement to prove why with anything except a ruler, but so many people prefer it hands down.


----------



## Da Wiz (May 8, 2019)

rdcollns said:


> Because I disagreed with nearly every opinion you stated in your first post. It is extremely easy to provide a satisfying image at 133".
> 
> You make a lot of good points, a projector will not technically measure as well as a typical flat panel, high quality lenses can provide much better images than the plastic lenses in a $1000 projector (my last projector had a lovely glass lens, and was a joy to setup), I agree that an iris is necessary on most projectors but that feature is now widely available. And your viewing distances are great suggestions.
> 
> I firmly believe that a projected 133" image is far more satisfying than a large flat panel. 4000 lumens might be nice, but is definitely not a requirement. You clearly don't like projectors, and have some decent reasons why they don't work for you. But in my opinion, they still provide a much better experience for the in home cinema. I regularly have friends who own shiny new OLED screens comment on how much better the experience is with my projector. You might not be able to take a measurement to prove why with anything except a ruler, but so many people prefer it hands down.


I clearly don't like projectors because I have eyes. I am an imaging systems engineer. I've worked on the scanning equipment used in the first digital restoration of Snow White back in the DVD days. I've worked on analog cinema projects, digital cinema projects, 3D projects for medical, petroleum, military, mapping, and clandestine ops. I've used and evaluated projectors selling for $800 to $60,000+. I know what projectors can and can't do at every price point. I am also HIGHLY aware that people claiming to LOVE PROJECTORS MORE than technically superior in every way except maximum physical size, are often using projector screens I would throw away because they are so bad. I have 2 premium projections screens... one with woven fabric that's acoustically transparent. It's 10 feet wide and has motorized "curtains" to block unused parts of the screen with black velvet. The other screen is Stewart Filmscreen's legendary StudioTek 100 reference-grade projection screen. It is a special version of that screen mounted to a hard board to stop the subwoofers from shaking the screen during the crazier bass heavy movie scenes. I have also done professional calibration for about 10 years and have seen EVERYTHING in home theater systems. Lesser-quality screens than the ones I use are s*** when you see them side by side with the best screens. I can make a $25,000 laser phosphor projector look like it might cost $5000 just by using it with a lesser projection screen. A lot of people who are on $1000 projectors use paint for their screen to keep costs down. OK, whatever, but I have also compared chalk-white latex paint (pure flat white) and 2 different types of "screen paint" that are considerably more expensive than latex paint, but much cheaper than commercial screens. It was a horror show for an image scientist. You cannot appreciate how much screen manufacturers can accomplish with engineered screen materials until you can compare them to paint and other inexpensive screen options.

The best lenses I've used have been computer designed lenses with all glass elements, 16 elements most of the time, but occasionally 17 elements. There are 32 or 34 lens surfaces that the light has to pass through before getting to the screen. Each lens surface causes a slight "ding" on image quality. The glass itself is generally pretty good, but even when the lenses touch each other, you cannot eliminate any of those lens surfaces from causing a loss of image quality. If you put a lens from a perfectly good $1000 projector on, say a $25,000 laser-phosphor projector, you would be HORRIFIED if you could see the 2 images side by side. With a TV, there are no "optics" between the pixels and you... there's a "safety" layer, at least one layer of anti-glare coating, and if it is an LCD/LED TV, there's a polarizing layer for each pixel color. None of these disturb the light significantly after it is emitted by the TV. Flat screen TVs have nearly nothing between you and the light from the pixels and every pixel is uniformly illuminated. The center of a TV isn't twice as bright as the corners as with many projectors.

The problem with people who love projection (often) is that all they care about is big physical size of images without any reasoning behind it. If you have a 50-degree viewing angle on a big screen, you get precisely the SAME visual impact from a 65-inch diagonal TV if you sit close enough to the 65-inch TV to produce a 50 degree viewing angle. I've seen theaters in homes that have a $1500 projector, a 14-foot wide screen, and a pair of $300/pair small bookshelf speakers for sound. WTF? How is that "good" in any way? A $1700 85-inch Hisense TV will blow the projector setup out of the water if you setup with the same viewing angle and the TV will eliminate the noise of the projector in the room, eliminate the damage that even the 16 or 17 element computer-designed projection lens. The TV will show you every pixel in the image. The projector will show you HALF of the pixels in the original images (because a $1000 projector will not have 3840x2160 resolution imagers)--but only if the projector has image shift. And even though the projector shows HALF of the pixels in UHD images, each pixel is 4 times larger than it should be. You can barely reproduce anything that looks like hair on a $1000 projector, but on the best 85 inch Hisense TV currently selling for about $1500 (you don't need a long cable or a screen with the TV so you can spend a little more), you'll be able to count the hairs if you wish. And the range of colors the projector can reproduce is LAME compared to the 85 inch Hisense TV. You see almost NONE of the expanded color space of UHD from inexpensive projectors while the TV will show you all kinds of colors you've never seen in video before.


----------

