Big screens (at the cinema) and big screens (the televisions in your houses)...

[McQ]

We all know that it's a better experience to watch a film on a big screen at the cinema, as opposed to watching that same film at home on the (increasingly embiggening these days) television in your house, even though the size of the image often fills the exact same amount of your field of vision. But I cannot explain to myself why exactly this is. Does anyone have an answer?

The distinction was obvious in the past, if you were watching films at home on a 14" CRT hooked up to a video player, but with TVs the way they are these days (increasingly embiggening), if you've got a nice one, and you sit close enough to it, etc. You know what I mean, anyway...

[sevendaughters]

The distractions of domesticity have some effect, but some academics suggest that home viewing just creates a different kind of engagement rather than a qualitatively worse one.

I'm looking at my top rated films on Letterboxd and think I've seen them in the big four ways - cinema, big telly, shit telly, laptop - so I do think quality will out, generally.

[Shaxberd]

Digital images projected on a fabric screen are less taxing on the eyes than images on an LED screen. Imagine how unpleasant a cinema-sized TV screen would be to look at.

[Old Nehamkin]

I don't have a fancy sound system or anything like that and if I did I think I'd still withhold from putting the volume up as high as I'd really like to avoid disturbing the neighbours so that's a big factor for me. Also yes I find I'm more likely to maintain my concentratiom and be absorbed by the film in a cinema than sitting in my flat.

Beyond that, it's just nice to go out and be among other people and have that communal experience with a film at least now and then.

[Papa Wheelie]

I prefer to watch films at home, for the most part. Being able to set up the viewing distance, angle and quality of a calibrated panel make it more visually appealing for me. I do enjoy looking closely at different elements in a frame at the cinema but a lot of the films I enjoy don't particularly benefit from being blown up to that size. Some do, of course, and I drop everything to see Kurosawa or Leone on the big screen, for example. On the flip side, I have blackout shutters, so the cinema/gaming space is pitch black, no distracting Fire Exit in the corner of my eye. On balance, I choose home.

In terms of sound, you can't beat the room size and bass swells of the cinema for a Hollywood action blockbuster, but again, I rarely watch that kind of thing. I also find that most cinema soundsystems are quite bloated and muddy, and far far too loud these days. I have a good Atmos system and while it can't give the same impact, I do enjoy the precision and the clarity which you can only really get with a custom setup. I watched the original Top Gun recently and the panning, swooping jet sounds gave me goosebumps. That'll do me. I'll say sound is a draw.

The other factors are distraction and comfort, etc. Again, I'd much rather my own recliners than fixed cinema seating, even the good ones. And while it's true that I can't get absorbed in quite the same way if my wife has friends over, for example, when I have the place to myself (or watching with my wife), it's vastly better than the cinema. Any domestic distraction is dwarved by the experience of sharing a room with strangers. You get the odd showing where you feel it's enhanced by the shared experience, but realistically that's far outweighed by the instances which are tarnished or frankly spoiled. For comfort, home wins by a mile.

[Blinder Data]

it depends on your set-up at home. my telly is in the living room that is also a thoroughfare. i have small children. fucking all that off to go the cinema is instantly preferable.

if i had a room in my house, even a small one, dedicated to watching films with recliner seats, good projection, great sound system (with fewer distractions at home, like children) - it's a close call

still would prefer the cinema though. it's always bigger and better. it's saturday night at the movies. it's stale popcorn flicked at some belm's head.

luv movies <3

[Sebastian Cobb]

I like going to the cinema, I've even got it into a little ritual where I have a pint in a pub round the corner beforehand, and often after. This is somewhat necessary as the vagaries of the busses mean I'd probably end up missing films if I didn't leave early.

[Minami Minegishi]

I have a huge TV and pretty good sound system, and I have blackout curtains. Sometimes I sit closer to the TV to replicate that thing of sitting on the front row at a cinema - my personal favourite. However, it never comes close in terms of immersion.

Cinemas can't be beaten as far as I am concerned.

However, it is highly unlikely I will visit them outside of festivals. Deso shitholes.

[Gurke and Hare]

We all know that it's a better experience to watch a film on a big screen at the cinema, as opposed to watching that same film at home on the (increasingly embiggening these days) television in your house, even though the size of the image often fills the exact same amount of your field of vision. But I cannot explain to myself why exactly this is. Does anyone have an answer?

Is it because your house isn't full of cunts making noise with their phones?

[katzenjammer]

even though the size of the image often fills the exact same amount of your field of vision. But I cannot explain to myself why exactly this is. Does anyone have an answer?

This educational video might help explain it, just reverse the situation, think big and close not small and far away

[ZoyzaSorris]

I still think that your brain takes in the absolute scale not just the relative angular size and gives you more of an epic spectacle type feeling from the silver screen you can't get at home. Personally I have a pretty small telly though but have experienced bigger ones. Also my local cinema has a really nice bar and is often very quiet and seems to have pretty civilised cliente generally so there isn't usually any of the other humans being twats stuff I hear a lot about here. So count me down for team cinema.

[Mister Six]

I don't have a fancy sound system or anything like that and if I did I think I'd still withhold from putting the volume up as high as I'd really like to avoid disturbing the neighbours so that's a big factor for me.

That's a big one. Zone of Interest had some of the most impressive sound work of any film I've seen in years, and that would have been lost if I'd watched it on my own telly + soundbar.

Also, our TV At home, while perfectly decent, doesn't actually occupy the same field of vision as a decent cinema screen in the good seats.

OTOH, I can watch films about the Holocaust or placid Miyazaki films with lots of quiet, slow bits, without having some absolute cunt shoving popcorn into his face behind me, or telling his mate that this film is "weird" and he wants to choose the next one.

People are animals. And I'd so often prefer them to be vegetables or minerals.

[Sebastian Cobb]

I still think that your brain takes in the absolute scale not just the relative angular size and gives you more of an epic spectacle type feeling from the silver screen you can't get at home.

It totally does, I think. And if you sit too close to a cinema screen it's as unpleasant as sitting close to a tv.

GFT3 is like that, tiny little cinema but with good screen, seats and soundsystem, just got to get there early to get a mid-row seat. Especially if you're watching something subtitled, at the front row you'll need to move your head to read them.

[steveh]

Digital images projected on a fabric screen are less taxing on the eyes than images on an LED screen. Imagine how unpleasant a cinema-sized TV screen would be to look at.

While not massively popular yet, there are now TV panels for cinemas that some places are using. Higher contrast, no issues with focus and most importantly for the operators lower maintenance costs.