Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Ratio of screen height to first row

This is topic Ratio of screen height to first row in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004126

Posted by Karagir Khush (Member # 1785) on 06-24-2005, 08:59 PM:

What is the ratio of screen height to distance of first row from the screen?
Is there a calculated approach?
Any links to a documented approach is most appriciated.

Thanks and regards.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-24-2005, 11:34 PM:

In a perfect world, the first row should be no closer than the screen is wide. Unfortunately, it isn't a perfect world and besides, little kids love to sit as close as possible. I don't know of a "standard."

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 06-25-2005, 01:02 AM:

IIRC the old SMPTE/ITEA recommendation was the top-of-screen height to the first row so that the first row people didn't have to look any higher than 45° to the top of the screen. And the last row was supposed to be no more than six screen heights back--which seems pretty short to me.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-25-2005, 02:17 AM:

WTF ***IS*** my friend John "Mr. Link City" Pytlak when ya need him?

I would post the info from the THX and SMPTE specs, BUTT(!!!!) John is "THEE" guy! [Wink]

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 06-25-2005, 05:15 AM:

The UK Cinematograph Act says thst the maximum angle from the eyelevel datum to the top of the screen should not exceed 35 degrees

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 06-25-2005, 08:13 AM:

Get a copy of the SMPTE paper; "Guidelines for the Design of Effective Cine Theaters" (SMPTE Journal Vol 95 Jan 1986)b It's a bit complex, but very through.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-25-2005, 08:54 AM:

The front row to screen measurement is not relevant. Using the old Fox standards: People want to sit 1.5 times the scope width from the screen. The size of the screen can be adjusted to place the 1.5 anywhere in the auditorium. I usually place the "best" seat at 2/3 of the way back.

In recent times, for a very large effect, I have placed it at 1/2 way back.

The "front row" question varies. Some owners want a high seat count and so "booking seats" are placed very close (4 ft) to the screen. Others want "best seats only" and so a more conservative approach is indicated.

Louis

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 06-25-2005, 01:04 PM:

The SMPTE paper is pretty much useless unless you're building a sloped-floor auditorium.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-25-2005, 01:27 PM:

I've heard that if the screen was to swivel down from the up position and then lay down on the floor,the top of the screen should be is where the first row should be placed when laying out a seating configuration.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-25-2005, 04:15 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
I've heard that if the screen was to...

In general: Hearsay, conjecture, inexperienced wannabe designers, AND the "get the most $eats in there possible" mentality are the primary reasons why there are soooo many poorly designed auditoriums.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-25-2005, 05:19 PM:

Economics come in to play. When we got our new seats last year, I was sorely tempted to leave out the first 3 or 4 rows in order to "force" people to sit a reasonable distance away -- but, the kids would've hated it, and our grosses would suffer too -- so the front rows are still too close.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 06-25-2005, 06:17 PM:

I'd put 2 rows on the floor, way too close just for the morons and sell out crowds and then a walk way, and the first row of the regular seating.
Most people in our theater sit in the back row or middle of the theater and couldn't care less.

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 06-25-2005, 07:02 PM:

quote: Dick Vaughan
The UK Cinematograph Act says thst the maximum angle from the eyelevel datum to the top of the screen should not exceed 35 degrees

Assuming the eye level of the front row is in line with base of the screen this make the minimum distance 0.7 screen heights.

Does this still apply to new build cinemas in the UK?

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 06-26-2005, 03:02 AM:

mark, you took the tangent, but you wanted to take the cotangent.

~1.43 screen heights.

Posted by Edwin Schwing (Member # 1270) on 06-26-2005, 03:58 AM:

I love the front row (personally...) That is where I watch all my movies!

I know that watching a movie is different than watching a tennis game, but when I go to a movie, I like moving my head to see the whole movie...

I have a 27 inch tv, I hate staring...

My First assistant ran the CINERAMA in San Diego for many many years. (now torn down...) I wish I could have sat in THAT front row.... I don't care how wide her screen was!!

E

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 06-26-2005, 11:30 AM:

I like to experience the film so I tend to sit about a screen height back. That way I can see all the image but can barely catch the masking in my peripheral.
It's more fun that way.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-26-2005, 12:57 PM:

According to the "old" SMPTE projectionist book (page 110), "the sight line of the first row to the center line of the picture screen should not exceed 30 [degrees] from the horizontal at eye level. This angle automatically establishes the distance between the first row of seats and the picture screen."

They have some other helpful suggestions as well, including the comment that the angle of projection should not exceed 5 [degrees] above or below the horizontal at the center of the screen.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-26-2005, 01:35 PM:

A lot of this depends on the person. Some people like for their peripheral vision to be filled (or almost), others like to stare at a small picture far away (what I call "tv people" who are used to watching their television at home when they select a seat).

1.5 times the screen height away, eh? So virtually every IMAX auditorium ever built was done wrong??? Nah, it's just personal preference. Case in point, I used to sit towards the back of auditoriums, but as each year passed I found myself sitting closer and closer (this coincided with my decline in tv watching). Nowadays I tend to sit where I can comfortably see the edges of the screen without having to turn my entire head, but close enough to truly get a "big screen" feeling. (This generally results in 1/3 to 1/2 back from the screen, but obviously depends on the auditorium design. In stadium auditoriums, the angle of the chair I find is more important, as most seats force you to look DOWN at the screen...yet the seats still sit back which is retarded.) Provided the projection is sharp, steady and the print free of defects, this really is the best place to get pulled into a movie. Those sitting in the back rows have the constant distraction of other people walking around in front of them as well as side lighting and EXIT signs, etc.

Oh yeah, and those of you who design their auditoriums with ceiling mounted lighting as opposed to "wall huggers" or sconce lighting to be used during the movie...YOU SUCK! Have some respect for your patrons who wear glasses. The reflections are damned annoying. Same goes for those tards who don't design the entire front end as well as the first 10 feet of the auditorium with 100% black curtains!!! You're killing the contrast, ya doofs. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-27-2005, 10:10 AM:

Here is what standard SMPTE 196M-2003 says for review rooms:

quote:
9 Review room viewing conditions
All observers in a review room shall be located within a standard observing area which shall be:
a) within the limits of a 15° angle on either side of a perpendicular to the center of the screen, in both the
horizontal and vertical planes; and
b) at a distance of 3 picture heights ± 1 picture height from the screen.

Most theatres have additional seats closer to the screen ("bookers seats"), and many people like to sit toward the back of the theatre at 4 or 5 picture heights. (Even a NTSC [dlp]

image would look okay at 5 picture heights).

I personally prefer to sit at 2 picture heights from the screen for most films.

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 06-27-2005, 01:38 PM:

quote: John Pytlak
I personally prefer to sit at 2 picture heights from the screen for most films.

Same here. I had always heard this referred to as the SMPTE "recommended" viewing distance, but now I see from John's citation they actually recommend a range of 2-4 screen heights. Guess I'm always going to want to be near the low end of that range, since I like to be immersed and fill as much of my vision as possible (without getting so close as to end up being uncomfortable, of course). It's usually where I end up sitting, although it usually depends on a whole list of factors, such as whether the film is scope or flat, whether the auditorium uses top masking, etc.

For a 2.39:1 image, sitting 2 screen heights back means the image will take up about 60 degrees horizontally across the width of your vision. The edges of human peripheral vision are a bit fuzzy, but they extend to approximately 160 degrees, so it should take up about 3/8ths of your total field of view. I usually just try to guesstimate where to sit to attain this sort of perspective. However, that doesn't always work, because some movies are just plain unwatchable at that viewing angle, while others are dull unless you get that big. That leads me to the following digression:

I've been thinking lately that not only should motion pictures have an intended aspect ratio, they should also have an intended viewing angle. There is so much variation in how tight or loose movies are framed these days, it's apparent some directors and cinematographers are screening everything from the back row, while others are looking at everything from the front row. They all seem to have different notions in their heads as to the "ideal" apparent size for the final image. Why not include that in the specifications for the movie? It might help people figure out where to sit when they go to the theater. I know I find myself trying to predetermine the best viewing distance for a given movie based on the aspect ratio, theater conditions, and the framing seen in trailers. A director specifying a recommended viewing angle (i.e., "60 degrees, sit close!", "40 degrees, sit back!") would help a lot, both in the theater and at home.

Heck, some directors seem to change over time, perhaps because they gain access to screening rooms with bigger screens. For example, the first Lord of the Rings movie is hard to watch at a viewing angle much bigger than 40 degrees, while the next two are not framed as tightly, and thus are comfortable to watch from a little closer. I wonder if Peter Jackson changed his editing style to select more medium and long shots and fewer close ups after seeing the first film on some very large screens?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-27-2005, 04:58 PM:

You know...it really depends on the film for me. An action adventure type film, I want to be closer to the screen, that is hopefully deeply curved to put me in the action. If it is more of a drama...then a bit further back is better. For documentaries...2-4 screen heights is just fine. My world goes beyond my vision, I would like movies to do the same. Sitting too far back is like looking through a tunnel.

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 06-28-2005, 07:49 AM:

quote: Aaron Haney
I wonder if Peter Jackson changed his editing style to select more medium and long shots and fewer close ups after seeing the first film on some very large screens?

Or seeing a DVD releace cropped to 1.77