Refining the Floorplan
Continuing the planning process from the previous steps, the steps detailed below focus on seating positions, field of view, and sightlines. The last section discusses possibly better floorplan options that could have been considered, including their possible advantages. (Although these options were not chosen for this theater design, perhaps incorrectly.)
​​​
Checking Screen Size and Field of View
Last Updated: 09/01/2024
The screen size relative to the seating position can be a personal choice. Ideally, one wants the screen size to be large enough to be immersive but not so large as to cause eye strain or excessive eye motion by the viewer to see the entire screen.
​
SMPTE and THX have defined recommendations for Field of View (FOV) for a film screen. FOV is the angle from the left to the right side of the screen at the viewing position.
​
The following are the SMPTE and THX recommendations. This information was not taken directly from the specification but was gathered based on web search results.
​
-
SMPTE recommends a minimum viewing angle of 30 degrees for a 16:9 screen.
-
There were several similar but different interpretations on the internet for THX recommendations.
-
The optimum FOV is 36 degrees for a movie theater.
-
For the best experience, the viewer's seating distance should be approximately 1.2 to 1.5 times the diagonal screen size.
-
For a 16:9 screen, a minimum viewing angle of 40 degrees.
-
-
Online installers recommend about a 45-degree FOV.
​​
Figure 1, to the right, shows the FOV calculated results for both rows of this proposed home theater. The back row barely meets the SMPTE/THX guidelines. It should ideally be closer to 45 degrees. The front row is arguably too close, but for my personal preference, I enjoy this overly large image on some content, so perhaps it is not too close. The exact detailed calculations for FOV are shown in the FOV Details section.
​
Figure 1. Expected Field of View for Both Rows
Riser Height and Line-of-Sight
Last Updated: 12/02/2024
Designing a theater with two rows of seating requires careful consideration to ensure every seat has an unobstructed view of the screen. To achieve an unobstructed view, the back row must be elevated sufficiently to prevent any obstruction from the front row. In this case, a riser was added to the back row, but the initial height was designed to be 8 inches. As a result, the riser was approximately 2-4 inches shorter than ideal.
​
The optimal riser height should have been determined using the calculations from the "Calculating the Riser Height" section. This section derives the equations to determine the proper riser height and also describes a simple "rule-of-thumb" to estimate it.
According to the simplified guidelines, the riser should ideally be around 12 inches tall. In this theater, the front row consists of a couch that is 2-4 inches lower than the recliners in the back row. Unfortunately, the chosen riser height of 8 inches is still insufficient for the best viewing experience.
​
Additionally, similar calculations can be applied to the placement of the projector. However, since the projector is mounted close to the ceiling, it is not at risk of being blocked by either the front or back rows of seating.
​​
Figure 2. Riser and Line-of-Site
Potentially Better Floorplan Options
Last Updated: 09/02/2024
There were a couple of other floorplan choices for the 13 x 17 room that could have been used and are (arguably) better than the one that was chosen. This section describes two of the most interesting options.
​
One option was to rotate the arrangement of the layout 90 degrees (see Figure 3) and place the screen on the long wall. The tradeoffs of this approach would have been:
​
-
Simpler design layout
-
More flexible screen size/placement; a larger screen is possible
-
More flexible/optimal seating placement.
-
No riser is needed, which simplifies the room design
-
The main negative—fewer seats. i.e., no room for second row
​
Figure 3. Rotated Floorplan
Another option (see Figure 4) is building a false wall to put speakers and acoustic treatments behind the screen. The tradeoffs of this approach would have been:
​​​​
-
Cleaner look (front LCR speakers hidden)
-
More flexible optimization of viewing distance and audio.
-
If the soffit widths had been reduced, the screen size could have been enlarged and optimized.
-
Equipment (e.g., AVR) could be hidden behind the false wall.
-
A false wall adds complexity to the room build.
-
Requires a more expensive Acoustically Transparent Screen (ATS)
-
No room for a second row of seats, and therefore, no need for a riser.
​​
A third option could have been to rotate the layout and add a false wall, nearly the same tradeoffs as the second option.
Figure 4. Single Row in Original Orientation
Hindsight
​
Upon reevaluating the room's design, it's clear that the initial plan to seat six was perhaps ambitious. Experience has shown that the theater rarely hosts more than four people, often just a couple. A smaller seating arrangement would not have been a drawback and would have improved both the viewing and audio experience.
​