squared80
Standard Member
9.4.2 or 9.2.4?
Originally my intention was 9.4.2 to stay within 16 channels. But on further though I think my room is big enough that the Atmos rear pair could play nicely with the backs. I'm going to install 4 Atmos since the additional cost is trivial compared to the project cost. I'll experiment and see if I like the rear pair. If so I will use a miniDSP HD to expand the channel count and manage the subs9.4.2 or 9.2.4?
What kind of thing do you watch in 16:9 format?Screen sizing and placement. I prefer a horizontal width of around 50 degrees. At 10' viewing distance a 130" diagonal 16:9 screen does it. I'm going with a 16:9 because the majority of programming I watch is in that format. In scope I'll mask top and bottom.
Sports and most TV drama is 16:9. I'm not losing anything from scope because 50 degrees horizontal is as wide as I find comfortable (~ 113" at 10'). Cropping top and bottom on a 16:9 maximizes both formatsWhat kind of thing do you watch in 16:9 format?
Switching from that to a smaller scope for epic films is far from ideal.
If your comfort is limited by that width, and not by the height, then that's very unusual, and I'd think probably an incorrect assumption. Plenty of testing has been done on this, and human vision is suited to a lot more width than height.Sports and most TV drama is 16:9. I'm not losing anything from scope because 50 degrees horizontal is as wide as I find comfortable (~ 113" at 10').
If 9'5" is the maximum width you can get in your room, then you're maximising what you can fit in your room due to room limitations, which is all you can do. But if you can fit wider, then you're not maximising scope format.Cropping top and bottom on a 16:9 maximizes both formats
I could get a much bigger screen in my room but for me it would degrade the experience. A 10' viewing distance places the seats in a good place to minimize bass nulls. It is also 7' off the rear wall, enough space to implement back speakers and diffusion.If 9'5" is the maximum width you can get in your room, then you're maximising what you can fit in your room due to room limitations, which is all you can do. But if you can fit wider, then you're not maximising scope format.
Yeah 10' is good and avoiding nulls an added bonus. My position is very similar.I could get a much bigger screen in my room but for me it would degrade the experience. A 10' viewing distance places the seats in a good place to minimize bass nulls. It is also 7' off the rear wall, enough space to implement back speakers and diffusion.
I know that for me (and evidently a lot of other folks as most professional designers target it too) a 50 degree horizontal viewing angle provides an immersive experience without excessive eye and head movement.
(BTW THX recommends a 36-40 degree viewing angle.)
You're pushing maximum vertical with the 16:9 content, but nowhere near maximum horizontally. If that's what you want, that of course is fine, as long as you're aware of the compromises.At 10' viewing that's a 9'5" screen width no matter what the format is. The resulting vertical dimension is just calculated from the width and aspect ratio. The 16:9 image height is within the recommended 30 degree maximum.
It's not ideal to be watching Bridgerton on a massive screen, and then have to switch to a smaller screen to watch the latest blockbuster, but if that's a compromise you have to make that's ok.As for the taller 16:9 image diminishing the scope image I don't find that to be the case when I watch on my 85" TV in the living room. I do wish that the scope image was bigger but I forget about comparing it in a couple of minutes.
This is more or less what I currently have (16:9 screen approx 2.9m wide masked to scope viewed from 3.3m).I think we are talking past each other. Since the defining dimension for me is a 50 degrees horizontal I have two possible choices, a scope screen that will be 9' 5" wide and 4' high. I can mask the sides for 16:9 and have a 7' 1" wide image with a 39 degree viewing angle. Or a 9' 5" wide x 5' 4" high 16:9 screen that I can mask for 9' 5" x 4' scope image.
If I wanted a wider viewing angle it would make sense to have a scope screen and mask the sides as the vertical viewing angle for 16:9 would be uncomfortable.
"New cinemas built to THX specifications have a minimum viewing angle of 36 degrees from the last row of seats. The viewing angle ‘sweet spot’ seems to be around 45-50 degrees where SMPTE, THX and 20th Century Fox recommendations converge. This matches quite closely with CEDIA’s 43 degree viewing angle recommendation for 2.4:1 ‘Cinemascope’ content as per CEB-23. For reference 43 degrees is 3x picture height using a 2.35:1 screen."
For me it's a no brainer. The 16:9 screen gives me both aspect ratios with no compromise on my preferred viewing angles.
Thanks for the input. You must be a pretty smart guy! LOL Although following engineering guidelines is usually a good idea, image size and format are a personal choice for a private room.This is more or less what I currently have (16:9 screen approx 2.9m wide masked to scope viewed from 3.3m).
It’s the most flexible arrangement. Most stuff I watch in the masked screen either scoped or zoomed in. Remove top and bottom masking for IMAX material. Remove bottom only for enlarged 4K 16:9 material.