Phil P
Agent
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2002
- Messages
- 27
What do you think would be the minimum size of a room(length, height, and width)for a dedicated home theater that could comfortably seat about 6-8 people with a 100 inch screen?
I would say a minimum would be 20' long by 15' wide by 10' high. That's about what mine works out to be and I think 6 would be very comfortable, 8 would be very tolerable.Jeff, could you elaborate on how you've set up your HT? Frankly, I'm at a loss at how you can accommodate those specs. I've been pulling my hair out trying to plan my HT for our new house, wrestling with how big is big enough, and how small is too small, and how to fit everything and blah blah blah.
The most recent issue of Audio Video Interiors features a theater that is just what I'm looking for. It is in a 22' by 14.5' room (what the designers refer to as "compact", which I find hysterical). Currently I have allotted a 22' by 17' space. As an experiment last night I reconfigured my current family room similar to the proposed layout (which includes two rows of seating with a funky bar area behind the second tier that will allow for bar stool seating on casual events, and a 100" screen). My current family room is 20' by 14', with an open concept that extends into the kitchen so I can fake 22' length or more. I moved my sofa and loveseat into two rows and separated them with enough distance to accommodate recliners (based on measurements of the new seats I'm considering). Once done there did not seem to be nearly enough room. Width was fine at 14', although with side tables a couple of extra feet would be needed. Length, however, was far too cramped. I only had 11' or so viewing distance from the front seat. By my math that would dictate an 83" wide 16x9 screen to achieve a 35 degree field of vision. So the discussions of a 100" screen here are throwing me - this would yield over 40 degrees field of vision (41.49 to be exact). Is that not getting a little on the overwhelming side? Are you not risking seeing scanlines (for CRT) or pixels (for DLP, LCD, D-ILA) or artifacts? Using 35 degrees as the preferred field of vision (30 degrees is minimum, I believe THX suggests 40, taking the average) a seating distance of 13.21' is required (who said trigonometry was a waste of time).
Secondly, with the seats located as indicated there was barely any room for the stool area in the rear. Looking at the AVI pictures there's ample room in the back. I can't really tell how far from the front the seating is but with a 100" screen I can't imagine it being much closer than I laid it out. Likewise with these dimensions there's little opportunity to locate seating in the preferred acoustic spots (say 5ths of the room). Add to the mix that I really would prefer to have freestanding speakers at the front vs. inwalls - there goes more floor space.
So, with that in mind I would love some advice here.
PS. I'm assuming everyone here is speaking the language of FPTV screens and properly referring to screen width and not diagonal.
So my final numbers are 11' x 13' x 8' (width, length, height)By my estimation that is incredibly small, even as a minimum (although acoustically they would be very good).
Assuming a full sized sofa runs 7 1/2' wide (that's the size of the one I'm looking at - 90") you have only 1 3/4' on either side until you hit walls. That's a tight squeeze. And assuming you have conventional surround speakers (vs. in-wall or in-ceiling) you're likely to bump your head. If we consider two-person love seats then it's a bit more manageable. Assuming 5 1/2' (67" wide) now you have 2 3/4' on either side which is better, but still pretty tight. A love seat is the only thing I would recommend in a room this narrow. A U-Shaped sofa/sectional would fare no better.
For length you indicated a 13' minimum yet also suggest not wanting to be any closer than 10'. Even if you allow for only one loveseat (see above) for seating this is not going to fly given that there's only 3' remaining or 2' behind the couch (factoring in 10' viewing distance as opposed to 10' seating distance, so allow a foot or so from the eyes to the back of the couch, probably more). And given that Phil is planning on a 100" screen (remember, I'm assuming you're refering to width) that has headache all over it with a viewing angle of 45 degrees (factoring in 10' viewing distance as opposed to 10' seating distance). Realistically you wouldn't want to have a viewing distance less than 11 1/2' to keep the field of vision manageable (40 degrees).
I'm back to being stymied with these recommendations as I can't seem to undestand how it would all fit. Coming back to Phil's original question (this is, after all, his thread ), I would suggest at least 13 1/2' wide (accommodates a 7 1/2' wide 3-seat couch with a comfortable 3' walking room on either side) and at least 16' length for a single row (accommodates an 11 1/2' viewing distance to achieve maximum 40 degree field of vision on 100" wide screen, 1 1/2' est. from eyes to back of seat, and 3' walking room to wall) or 22' length for two rows (extra 6' for second couch, assuming reclining with allowance for extended foot rest and room to back of front row seat). So, to summarize:
1) Single row: 13 1/2' x 16'
2) Double row: 13 1/2' x 22'
These numbers are entirely dependent on the assumptions I've noted above and allow for comfortable passage space. There's minimum and there's minimum. From a practical perspective I strongly believe you would need the extra space, although you could get away with something smaller. If you opt for different seating styles or layouts all bets are off, but you can plug the numbers. Factor 11 1/2' from screen to eyes (seated and reclined), 3' passage room beside and behind seats, and enough space between first and second rows to accommodate a fully extended recliner such that the guest's feet don't hit the seat in front, and preferably to allow for someone in the middle to pass between. Also avoid - at all costs - ending up seated against a wall. Awful acoustic territory. You want 1 1/2' or more clearance.
Now for height. I'm struggling with this one myself - whether or not I should plan for a deeper/higher (depending on your perspective) basement. Right now my finished ceiling is spec'd for 8'1". That might get tight with a ceiling-mounted projector and a second (elevated) row of seating. Remember that your second row riser height is a function of unobstructed sightlines. Based on the eye position of the average viewer they should be seated high enough to see the bottom of the screen while someone is seated in front of them (ie. draw a straight line connecting the bottom of the screen to the top of the first row viewer's head and beyond, then set riser height so second row viewer's eyes are on that line, and again factor while reclining in movie-seat-mode). Depending on the relative location of the screen and viewers and other dimensions you will determine this height - the farther back the second row is positioned the higher this riser must be (think of following the line drawn above).
Also note that the screen size (100" in this case) will dictate a particular location for the projector based on its throw distance (indicated as a multiple of the screen width, usually as a range). And note again that based on the projectors location it will demand a particular height so that it projects straight without having to resort to keystone corrections for geometry (which also creates artifacts). Unless the projector you choose has a mechanical adjustment for the optics you may have to hang that projector pretty low. After all that I can't really say if 8' as a minimum will be good for either of us. Still need to run the numbers. Ideally you could a) choos a projector that has mechanically adjustable optics, or b) mount it right at the back of the room in an enclosed (but ventilated) nook with just the lens poking out, assuming the projector can accommodate the throw.
Using 8' for now you would want to play with the length estimates proposed above for better acoustics (8 and 16 are multiples, 8 and 22 are both multiples of 2). Even a modest adjustment would help - add a few inches or a foot to each length.
My screen size is 123" diagonal, not sure about exact width.107.20" wide. Good 'ol Pythagoras. Be sure to reference your screen size as width and aspect ratio so people don't get confused when talking FPTV. That's a big screen. Assuming the 11' distance noted above is to the eyes that's a 44 degree viewing angle. Wow. I do find it comforting, however, that you don't see image structure.
That's a cool space you have running. Interested to see the final product. It's looking like my final dimensions will 8' x 17' x 23'. I'll have a 12 1/2' viewing distance which will yield a 35 degree field of vision on a 96" 16:9 screen (FireHawk of course). I'm really interested in hearing more about the projector. Feel free to e-mail to discuss directly.