Home Theater

Filed Under: Vote

By: Scott Wilkinson • Posted: Mar 23, 2012 • Published: Dec 31, 1969 • 18 comments

As many of you already know, your screen size and optimum viewing distance are related. According to THX, the maximum recommended viewing angle—the angle formed by the sides of the screen and your seating position, as shown above—is 40 degrees. SMPTE (the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) recommends a minimum viewing angle of 30 degrees. This translates to a viewing distance from 1.2 to 1.6 times the screen's diagonal measurement. For example, if your screen is 50 inches diagonally, the optimum viewing distance is 60 to 80 inches, or 5 to 6.7 feet.

This is much closer than most people sit from their video display. How about you? To vote in this poll, follow these steps:

1. Measure your viewing distance in inches;
2. Divide your viewing distance by your screen's diagonal size in inches;
3. The result is the relationship between your viewing distance and screen size.

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

What to Look For in a Home Theater

Filed Under: Ask Home Theater

By: Scott Wilkinson • Posted: Jun 23, 2011 • 4 comments

What Type of Surround Speakers Do You Use?

Filed Under: Vote

By: Scott Wilkinson • Posted: Jun 17, 2011 • Published: Dec 31, 1969 • 11 comments

Back in March, I asked what is your main speaker configuration, and 52 percent of respondents picked 5.1, with another 28 percent saying 7.1. So now I wonder what type of surround speakers you use—bipole, dipole, and/or monopole.

What's the difference? Bipole and dipole surround speakers include two sets of drivers that fire more or less in opposite directions—with bipoles, the drivers are in phase, while a dipole's drivers are out of phase, creating a null region along the central axis between the drivers. Monopoles are simply conventional direct-radiating speakers with a single set of drivers that many prefer for multichannel music, but they don't create a diffuse surround soundfield that benefits most movie soundtracks.

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice, especially if you use a combination in a 7.1 system. What combo do you use, and why?

What Was Old Is New Again

Filed Under: Ultimate Tech

By: Scott Wilkinson • Posted: Apr 03, 2009 • 1 comments

What Will You Do in Response to Netflix's Rate Hike?

Filed Under: Vote

By: Scott Wilkinson • Posted: Jul 15, 2011 • Published: Dec 31, 1969 • 10 comments

As you probably know by now, Netflix just announced a change in its rates for online streaming and physical discs by mail. Instead of charging one monthly fee for as many of both as you want (one disc at a time), you must now pay a separate fee for each medium—$8/month for streaming and another $8/month for DVDs by mail or $10/month for Blu-rays, a 60-percent increase for both services together.

In his excellent blog on the subject, Home Theater editor Rob Sabin points out that Netflix's streaming library is missing lots of current, desirable titles, and the A/V quality of its streaming content cannot match that of Blu-ray. For now, he recommends sticking with Blu-ray rentals and waiting for the streaming library and quality to catch up.

What do you plan to do in response to the Netflix rate hike? If you're already a Netflix subscriber, will you keep both options or dump one or the other—or both? If you're not yet a subscriber, does this development encourage you to choose one or both, or will you stay away?

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

What Would You Like to See From NAB?

Filed Under: The Big Picture

By: Scott Wilkinson • Posted: Mar 24, 2011 • 2 comments

What's More Important, 4K or High Frame Rates?

Filed Under: Vote

By: Scott Wilkinson • Posted: Apr 27, 2012 • Published: Dec 31, 1969 • 33 comments

At the 2012 National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) convention last week, 4K was everywhere—in cameras, displays, and workflow devices—at rapidly falling prices. Many professionals contend that 4K approaches the inherent spatial resolution of film, and it can be displayed on very large screens with no visible pixel structure.

However, in a pre-recorded demo in the Christie booth (which I describe here), James Cameron made a compelling argument that increasing the frame rate at which movies are shot and displayed from 24 to 48 or even 60 frames per second does more to sharpen perceived detail—especially in moving objects—than increasing the spatial resolution. In fact, all the demo material was 1920x1080 on a 15-foot-wide screen.

As the demo clearly illustrated, shooting and displaying movies at higher frame rates dramatically sharpens motion detail—so much so that it no longer looks like film, but more like video, which many people object to. So my question to you is, what's more important, the higher spatial resolution of 4K at film's traditional 24fps or the greater temporal resolution of higher frame rates at 2K? (BTW, Peter Jackson is hedging all bets by shooting The Hobbit at 48fps, 4K, and 3D!)

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.