Media room, 5 m, premium 16:9 — ~92" floor-biased

The same viewing-angle rule applies — screenW = 2·tan(angle/2)·rear-seat-distance — but premium tier uses the narrower SMPTE ~30° target, so for a given rear seat it calls for a smaller image than the reference ~36°. Choosing 16:9 rather than 2.39:1 makes the screen taller for its width, matching broadcast and streaming content so no black bars appear on everyday material.

For this state the 3.78 m rear seat and 30° angle give 2·tan(15°)·3.78 ≈ 2.03 m of width, which at 16:9 is a 1.14 m-high image and a ~92" diagonal, with an indicative 1.8× lens throw of 3.65 m inside the 5 m length. The shorter room yields three rows of three seats (9); at 2.7 m the ceiling sits right at the overhead threshold, so the format selector lands on a floor-anchored 5.1.4 (10 channels) rather than a taller reference array. Because 92" falls under the ~100" the premium tier prefers, the tool flags the room as tight for that tier — an honest note that the geometry, not the tool, is the constraint.

Direction of change is consistent: a deeper or wider room grows the screen and can lift richer formats, while a lower ceiling or fewer seats steps the speaker layout down. In a narrower room the usable-wall cap can bind before the angle does — here 2.03 m sits inside the ~3.2 m usable wall so it does not, but drop the width and the wall would flatten every tier to the same capped size, which the tool marks with a note.

As with its sibling, this is planning geometry only: it does not model acoustics, screen gain or projector lumens, ambient-light rejection from windows common in multi-use rooms, sightlines, or the exact lens that must hit the 3.65 m throw. Take the ~92" and 5.1.4 as the envelope, then confirm daylight control, seating sightlines and lens selection on site.