I have a 50" Panny plasma. I'd like to go much larger and am looking at the 60" Pioneer Kuro Elite. Is there any projector that can make a 110-120" picture that is as good as the Pioneer Kuro Elite? I like a bright and vivid picture with deep colors.

The Kuro is $6500 MSRP at Best Buy. I'd be willing to spend a little more if it means I get a much bigger screen but don't lose anything with picture quality.

I also read a thread somewhere that said there are projectors that do better than 1080p. Is this true?

Yes! 100%!!! Actually for the most similar picture to a plasma, you need to stick to a DLP. Now, remember some things...when you take an image and blow it up to 110"+, you are effectively lowering the area information (less info per physical space on screen). So in order to make sure you aren't having issue, you have to be the right distance away. Now it will virtually never be as bright as a plasma because it is so large. Not to mention that you will need a dark room.

But, in the simplest terms, a good projector for a given size will outperform most plasmas.

Hi Jason,
Can you elaborate on this?
In your opinion, which make and model of DLP PJ is most "plasma like"?
Thanks

Yes! 100%!!! Actually for the most similar picture to a plasma, you need to stick to a DLP. Now, remember some things...when you take an image and blow it up to 110"+, you are effectively lowering the area information (less info per physical space on screen). So in order to make sure you aren't having issue, you have to be the right distance away. Now it will virtually never be as bright as a plasma because it is so large. Not to mention that you will need a dark room.

But, in the simplest terms, a good projector for a given size will outperform most plasmas.

Hi Jason,
Can you elaborate on this?
In your opinion, which make and model of DLP PJ is most "plasma like"?
Thanks

Sim C3X1080. You might be able to get a plasma like image with a Sim HT380 and a high gain screen like a silverstar or highpower. An Infocus IN83 would probably have the light output but contrast wouldn't be as good as with the Sims.

I have a somewhat different view on this from Jason. The latest generation of plasmas from the big players, from which my favorite picks are:
Panasonic TH-50PZ800U
Pioneer Elite PRO-151FD
Samsung PN50A550have gotten insanely good.

The black levels on the Pioneer are world-class and the color on all three can be tweaked to near perfection. We are getting to a point where there isn't just a whole lot of extra performance to be had at any price (though the Samsung could certainly improve its black level).

So, the appropriate question is not can projectors offer "better" picture quality than plasmas, because I'm not sure that any display can do much better than what these displays are capable of. We have entered the realm of diminishing returns.

The more important question is whether projectors can offer comparable picture quality with MUCH larger sizes for a true theater experience.

The answer is that, yes, some of the better ones can, though they are not inexpensive. Of the ones I have seen, my current favorites are:
JVC RS2 /w Lumagen Radiance processor (LCoS)
Sharp XV-Z20000 (DLP)
For a less money, the Epson Pro Cinema 1080 UB (LCD) is an awfully nice unit.Note: There are several well-regarded projectors from SIM2 (DLP), Marantz (DLP), Planar (DLP), and Sony (LCoS) that I haven't seen, so I won't offer an opinion.

Sim C3X1080. You might be able to get a plasma like image with a Sim HT380 and a high gain screen like a silverstar or highpower. An Infocus IN83 would probably have the light output but contrast wouldn't be as good as with the Sims.

you will NEVER get a plasma like image with a high gain screen, the picture will never be as sharp, as uniform, and you will see the texture of the screen which you don't see with any flat panel. You have to use a bright PJ, a matte screen and the appropriate size screen depending on the lumens...

you will NEVER get a plasma like image with a high gain screen, the picture will never be as sharp, as uniform, and you will see the texture of the screen which you don't see with any flat panel. You have to use a bright PJ, a matte screen and the appropriate size screen depending on the lumens...


I disagree w/ regards to a high power. Besides the occasional sparklie, there is no screen texture visible. In addition, uniformity is very good due to its retroreflective nature and I have no idea what you are talking about with regards to sharpness.

True Tom....plasmas have gotten really good. But then so have front projectors. My point is that if a person was comparing apples to apples (say 60" plasma and a 60" projected image in a proper room)...the front projection will most likely win out. Granted again, we are talking more money and the desire for a larger screen which will change that to some degree.

What's everybody's opinion on the picture projected in a good digital movie theater?
And, as a subsidiary question: Should a home theater system (PJ, Plasma or LCD) try and emulate what is projected in a digital or in an analogue movie theater? Or none?

My feeling is that there is no absolute picture look a system should try and emulate. But there are absolutes in PQ. Do you agree?

you will NEVER get a plasma like image with a high gain screen, the picture will never be as sharp, as uniform, and you will see the texture of the screen which you don't see with any flat panel. You have to use a bright PJ, a matte screen and the appropriate size screen depending on the lumens...


I dont agree with this. With a plasma you will always see the screen surface. They always make them glossy and inevitably will reflect other light in the room distracting you from the image.

Use a good screen and all you see is image from a projector. The High Power material can give you similar brightness and the surface completely disappears.

Tryg,

One of the pleasures of plasma for me is how I don't see any screen surface.

Just as with front projection, to get the full performance some care has to be taken in the viewing environment/set-up.

Of course you can get reflections but with a little care it's easy to deal with. I have my plasma in our back family room which has tons of windows. But at night time, when I watch movies anyway, I get no direct reflections and see no screen surface. And since I like to watch movies in darker light, that makes it even more of a moot issue. Viewed in such conditions no other display technology I have seen (including LCDs) has as direct looking an image without any screen artifacts.



This is actually why I've had a bit more trouble moving into front projection, because I'm so spoiled by the "screen-less" nature of the plasma image I inevitably notice the screen structure of the vast majority of projection screens.

I've never liked flat screen displays for watching movies. They look too artificial. I'd pick a high quality projector on a large screen any day. Sure, there are 100" flat screen displays (I've never evaluated one) but their costs are prohibitive, not to mention they're huge and require a mack truck to move them.

As to plasma vs projection I've written my impressions before at length. But in a nutshell: Plasma these days are achieving technical measurements in some areas that current front projection can only dream about. ANSI contrast in the multiple thousands for instance. Even the best projectors in the best environment (and how many people even have such set-ups?) don't touch that performance.

That's one reason why I'm not even trying to have my projection set up look like a plasma. If I really compared it to what plasma does well, I'd be disappointed (at least in direct comparisons). Rather, I appreciate what projection does that most plasmas can't: the huge image, which is a major factor in my enjoying a movie. Also, there is a different look to projection that I enjoy: a sort of organic, relaxing smoothness to the image. Not to mention a more cinematic feel for movies.

That said, I've seen the occasional projector, like the Sharp Z20000 DLP single chip, that can get an amazingly "plasma-like" image in terms of perceived sharpness and image punch. Put a plasma right next to it and you'll see how the plasma pulls ahead, but on it's own it has a plasma-like effect and wow factor.

A more apples to apples comparison would be the huge 103" diag Panasonic plasma vs a projected image of the same size. I've spent tons of time testing out that plasma and it's now a permanent fixture in it's own demo room of my local high-end AV shop.
I was viewing some Planet Earth on it last week.

It really does something no projection I've ever seen does in terms of giving the sensation of seeing "real life," - solid, convincing images, like a giant direct-view set.
The RS1 and other projectors in another room, projecting on essentially the same sized screen really don't have this consistently "real" effect.

When people walk into the room with the giant Panasonic plasma it's actually quite dark and you mostly just see the image, not what is creating the image, and lots of people have no idea what technology they are looking at. But people's jaws just drop - literally every person - at the image in a way that they never did when that same room was used for projection.

That said, interestingly enough, I notice that some projectors, particularly 1 chip DLPs like the Sharp, actually produce a slightly sharper image than the big plasma.

And now that (with borrowed projectors) I'm getting used to a 10 foot wide image for CinemaScope films, even the 103" Plasma is looking too "puny." :D

Not to sound too sure... But the Kuro Elite 60" will have a better picture then Any Front Projection system. But... Not by much when have the likes of the JVC RS1 & RS2 / w Radiance
Or
Sharp 20,000
Marantz VP-15S1
Marantz VP-11S2
Marantz VP-11S1
Samsung A800B
New Planars

These are the under $15,000 projectors in this catagory.

But for the Bottom list you have to be "NOT" susceptible to RBE.

What's everybody's opinion on the picture projected in a good digital movie theater?

It shouldn't be difficult to beat the quality you see in an average commercial
movie theater.

A plasma can have a great picture and probably superior to any current projector, but a 60" plasma is not going to get you an immersive experience.

If you're willing to give up a tiny bit of picture quality, you can get that immersive experience with a projector and still get a really nice picture -- and if you are reasonable with screen size, light control, seating distance from screen, willing to DIY on a few things or buy from "bang-for-the-buck" manufacturers on some of the things you will need, you shouldn't have to spend a lot more than you would on the 60" plasma to get it.

True Tom....plasmas have gotten really good. But then so have front projectors. My point is that if a person was comparing apples to apples (say 60" plasma and a 60" projected image in a proper room)...the front projection will most likely win out. Granted again, we are talking more money and the desire for a larger screen which will change that to some degree.


Why? I would think that a front projector would have a hard time creating a 60 inch image that could match a plasma in terms of black levels (contrast). Assuming both are equally good at rendering color.

Why? I would think that a front projector would have a hard time creating a 60 inch image that could match a plasma in terms of black levels (contrast). Assuming both are equally good at rendering color.

A friend and I tried comparing several single chip DLPs and an LCD projector against a Pioneer 50" plasma. We projected the images at 50" diag to match. At that size the projected images really did get more of a vivid, palpable direct-view like feel...but not quite. It still looked "projected" and not quite as vivid and solid and window-like as the plasma. FWIW.

Even when you project at smaller sizes there are still some limitations (e.g the optical engine/optical path) combined with room effects in projection that tend to limit it's performance compared to plasma technology (e.g. ANSI).

To quote Stalin, "Quantity has a quality all of its own".

Why? I would think that a front projector would have a hard time creating a 60 inch image that could match a plasma in terms of black levels (contrast). Assuming both are equally good at rendering color.

Try it sometime. Take something like an RS2, low lamp, properly setup onto a 60" proper screen in a dark room. I'd bet my kids you'd agree it kills the plasma.

But, black levels aren't the whole story anyways and we are all forgetting one very important thing on FP...you CAN get a big screen. Plasmas cannot do that (unless you are made of money).

It shouldn't be difficult to beat the quality you see in an average commercial
movie theater.

A plasma can have a great picture and probably superior to any current projector, but a 60" plasma is not going to get you an immersive experience.

If you're willing to give up a tiny bit of picture quality, you can get that immersive experience with a projector and still get a really nice picture -- and if you are reasonable with screen size, light control, seating distance from screen, willing to DIY on a few things or buy from "bang-for-the-buck" manufacturers on some of the things you will need, you shouldn't have to spend a lot more than you would on the 60" plasma to get it.


I basically agree with you. But:

1. I was not speaking about average movie theaters, but the best ones.

2. When you say `beat the quality', do you mean better CR, black level,...?

3. Immersion also depends crucially on sound, I think. And that's another,
quite complicated story...

The title to this thread is "do any projectors beat plasma picture quality?", but in the end this is really a matter of preference and in this case the preference of the original poster.

There are numerous threads on this projector forum concerning DLP versus LCoS projectors. Those who prefer DLP cite its brightness and image "punch" while the LCoS lovers prefer its more film-like display. (Yes I realize Tryg and others believe an RS2 with a high-gain screen can get you the best of both worlds, and I do not necessarily disagree). The point is that both camps have their own sense of what constitutes the best picture quality.

Personally, I am not a big fan of plasmas. I still see SDE on the best of them and the bright, almost artificial-look to the image (what others love as "image punch") gives me a headache. Sorry.

I disagree w/ regards to a high power. Besides the occasional sparklie, there is no screen texture visible. In addition, uniformity is very good due to its retroreflective nature and I have no idea what you are talking about with regards to sharpness.

The poster wanted a comparison to plasma PQ not what is acceptable or passable as PQ to you.
1) plasma's don't have "occasional sparklies"
2) there IS screen texture visible with an HP, its just acceptable to you, there is a difference.
3) if your idea of "uniformity is very good" is a half gain angle of 30 degrees, that just goes to show that your standards are low not that it is actually uniform. An HP can't even come close to matching a matte screens uniformity with a PJ, no less a PLASMA!!

to prove 1-3 put a roll of white paper tensioned accross the bottom of your HP (or you could possibly tuck sheets of paper into the gap between the fabric and the frame accross the full width of the screen). Now project a white blank screen. Sit at the outer most edge of your seating area. While the papers brightnes remains stable and even, one side of the HP will be brighter than the other, hence not uniform. Move left to right and back and its even worse.
Now go up to the screen, and compare the image on the paper wich has ZERO texture, to the HP which in comparison HAS texture although better than most screens, is still there, this is what reduces sharpness. Do the same thing with a blu-ray on and pause an image and you will see which is sharper, the paper will be!

Tryg, with a light controlled room, like what is required for front projection, you will not see any reflections or glare off of a plasma, hence zero screen surface is visible.

To the OP, you can get a plasma like image with like Jason said with a DLP, that has a minimum of 500 calibrated D65 lumens on low/economy, BUT you should keep the size to about 92" 16:9 diagonal (still 250% bigger than a 60" kuro) white matte screen (i.e. no added gain), unless you have a light cannon that also has high contrast like the higher end 3 chippers, then you can go bigger. This will give you at least 20ftL wich in a light controlled environment will look like a 60" Kuro (20ftL peak, 37ftL with window pattern after callibration), but BIGGER and not quite the black level, thats the trade off.

It shouldn't be difficult to beat the quality you see in an average commercial
movie theater.

It's not difficult. Having gone to a fairly new cineplex recently for the first time in years, I was surprised how poor it looked compared to our theater. As for plasmas, I really have only spent time with one I set up for a friend. As nice as it looked, it didn't do much for me compared to our 118" wide 2.35:1 screen. I'm hooked on big screens, even if the picture isn't quite as good as a plasma.

Don't forget, with a front projector, ambient light kills black level. I say this as a FP fan with a dedicated theater.

I dont agree with this. With a plasma you will always see the screen surface. They always make them glossy and inevitably will reflect other light in the room distracting you from the image.

Use a good screen and all you see is image from a projector. The High Power material can give you similar brightness and the surface completely disappears.

But we are watching our high quality PJ's in a dark enviroment, so a plasma in a dark envirment will its' screen disappear as well.


I don't think any PJ, kept at 60" image, could match the best plasmas. The select few that could come close are way more expensive.
Though you do obviously have the 'option' to go BIG if you want which we all know is nice.

If only they made a PJ that was ~$4/$5K or less that could be treated like a plasma(tv) in regards to use.
Or if only I was wealthy.

Up until a couple years ago I used to prefer plasma over most of the front projection. I'd see a movie on my friend's projection set up and enjoy the cinematic effect, but then come home and enjoy even more the vividness, clarity punch and realism of the plasma. So I chose the "smaller but better" image quality in my eyes.

But the progress in projection has changed that equation for me now. With lots of the latest projectors (and also with the advent of movies on HD media) the picture quality is knock-out good on it's own. If I have a top-level plasma to compare directly I may notice the plasma in pure PQ terms is even more impressive. But absent direct comparison - and when you are watching your display you aren't making comparisons anyway - a good projector can have "holy cow" good image quality and that giant immersiveness that sets it apart from any other type of display.

The poster wanted a comparison to plasma PQ not what is acceptable or passable as PQ to you.
1) plasma's don't have "occasional sparklies"
2) there IS screen texture visible with an HP, its just acceptable to you, there is a difference.
3) if your idea of "uniformity is very good" is a half gain angle of 30 degrees, that just goes to show that your standards are low not that it is actually uniform. An HP can't even come close to matching a matte screens uniformity with a PJ, no less a PLASMA!!

to prove 1-3 put a roll of white paper tensioned accross the bottom of your HP (or you could possibly tuck sheets of paper into the gap between the fabric and the frame accross the full width of the screen). Now project a white blank screen. Sit at the outer most edge of your seating area. While the papers brightnes remains stable and even, one side of the HP will be brighter than the other, hence not uniform. Move left to right and back and its even worse.
Now go up to the screen, and compare the image on the paper wich has ZERO texture, to the HP which in comparison HAS texture although better than most screens, is still there, this is what reduces sharpness. Do the same thing with a blu-ray on and pause an image and you will see which is sharper, the paper will be!

Tryg, with a light controlled room, like what is required for front projection, you will not see any reflections or glare off of a plasma, hence zero screen surface is visible.

To the OP, you can get a plasma like image with like Jason said with a DLP, that has a minimum of 500 calibrated D65 lumens on low/economy, BUT you should keep the size to about 92" 16:9 diagonal (still 250% bigger than a 60" kuro) white matte screen (i.e. no added gain), unless you have a light cannon that also has high contrast like the higher end 3 chippers, then you can go bigger. This will give you at least 20ftL wich in a light controlled environment will look like a 60" Kuro (20ftL peak, 37ftL with window pattern after callibration), but BIGGER and not quite the black level, thats the trade off.

Notwithstanding your obvious passion for this topic, I still disagree. It is true that the high power loses gain when outside of the viewing cone. However, I have never noticed one side being brighter than the other. I have actually walked around the room examining the picture from different angles. I have also examined many different screen materials. I have not seen a screen material with less visible screen texture, although I have not seen a stewart snow matte. In any event, at viewing distances greater than a few feet, whatever screen texture the high power contains, as well as any supposed sharpness loss, would be negligible.

1. I was not speaking about average movie theaters, but the best ones.

Name the best ones.

2. When you say `beat the quality', do you mean better CR, black level,...?

Picture quality.

3. Immersion also depends crucially on sound, I think. And that's another, quite complicated story...

A projector doesn't make sound, a plasma cannot give you immersive sound, so with regard to projector, immersion depends on picture size.

Immersive sound is another topic -- whether you're talking plasma or projector.

I'd bet my kids


Wait -- do I have to take your kids if I lose....or win?

a good projector can have "holy cow" good image quality and that giant immersiveness that sets it apart from any other type of display.

Right on.

1. Name the best ones.

I was thinking of the largest screens in the Loews Theatre in
NYC on Broadway between Columbus Circle and 72nd (the theatre which has also has an IMAX screen), or the largest screen in the theatre which hosts the dome in LA, or the IMAX theatre in Universal Studios, Hollywood (where I saw a memorable projection of the last Superman movie).

2. Picture quality.

Can you be more precise?

3. A projector doesn't make sound, a plasma cannot give you immersive sound, so with regard to projector, immersion depends on picture size.
Immersive sound is another topic -- whether you're talking plasma or projector.

Sure; my point (admittedly not well put) was that sound seems to me more important for immersion than picture. That being said, I have a PJ at home, and not a plasma, which projects on a screen with a 2.3m base, and I am very happy that way.

Personally, I am not a big fan of plasmas. I still see SDE on the best of them..... .

The same for me. I sit 1 screen width away, so FP is the only way to go.

7-8 feet from an 8 foot wide screen = heaven. :)

Art

In any event, at viewing distances greater than a few feet, whatever screen texture the high power contains, as well as any supposed sharpness loss, would be negligible.

Even at 10' (my viewing distance), compared to a matte screen or plasma, you will notice the difference. But I also understand that screen size is more important to you than absolute sharpness or uniformity, everyone has there preferences.

1. Name the best ones. I was thinking of the largest screens in the Loews Theatre in NYC on Broadway between Columbus Circle and 72nd (the theatre which has also has an IMAX screen), or the largest screen in the theatre which hosts the dome in LA, or the IMAX theatre in Universal Studios, Hollywood (where I saw a memorable projection of the last Superman movie).

I don't know those particular theaters, so this could be a tricky question. I will have to let someone who knows those theaters opine.

2. Picture quality. Can you be more precise?

Maybe. If you hang around here awhile, you'll see that debates are ongoing as to what makes great picture quality. However, no matter what you believe great picture quality to be, I'm betting there's a projector out there for not much more $$$ than a 60" Pioneer plasma that will impress you.

I agree with tom, disagree with jason a bit.

I dont know if RS2 would beat a kuro at 60 inch at all. I think this forum is somewhat isolated, I believe home theater mag said it best when last years kuro provide the best image and black level they ever seen, but a projector could beat it due to a large immersive picture, but not in terms of picture quality although some projectors would come close.

My dream set is a 90 inch kuro. I almost scrapped my home theater for a kuro the largest they made was 60 inch. But it just did not have that wow factor that is so important to me, the 60 inch just seemed underwhelming.

I have a 50" Panny plasma. I'd like to go much larger and am looking at the 60" Pioneer Kuro Elite. Is there any projector that can make a 110-120" picture that is as good as the Pioneer Kuro Elite? I like a bright and vivid picture with deep colors.


This is a bit like asking if a large 4 door sedan can handle as well as a sports car. The better ones can come close but will never be as good in the twisties. In other words, get the right vehicle for the driving you want to do.

I love plasma but would never consider it as my top choice to watch a movie. 50 or 60 inches is way too small.

I love front projecton but would never consider it as my top choice for watching in a family room during the day with multiple windows.

IMO if you only have the space or budget for one display get a plasma. If you have a family room and a dedicated theater room - gat a plasma and a projector. YMMV.

Right on.

Try it sometime. Take something like an RS2, low lamp, properly setup onto a 60" proper screen in a dark room. I'd bet my kids you'd agree it kills the plasma.

Whoa Jason!! The kids? Are you already subconsciously resenting the possible loss of your dedicated home theater space to a play room conversion for them? :D That just HAS to hurt, tons of parental love or not....:(

I agree with tom, disagree with jason a bit.

I dont know if RS2 would beat a kuro at 60 inch at all. I think this forum is somewhat isolated, I believe home theater mag said it best when last years kuro provide the best image and black level they ever seen, but a projector could beat it due to a large immersive picture, but not in terms of picture quality although some projectors would come close.

My dream set is a 90 inch kuro. I almost scrapped my home theater for a kuro the largest they made was 60 inch. But it just did not have that wow factor that is so important to me, the 60 inch just seemed underwhelming.

that just about sums it up perfectly.

If you consider the sitting distance with in living room flat panel and do the same with FP PQ would be as good. In some parameters the new Elite is better than most FP but I bet the overal experience of FP is hard to beat.
Also if sit at 1.5 of the screen width of your plasma you will see the screen as well as pixel. They are NOT as transparent as some claim. I have one in my living room and never watch film based on it.

Also if sit at 1.5 of the screen width of your plasma you will see the screen as well as pixel. They are NOT as transparent as some claim. I have one in my living room and never watch film based on it.

What resolution is your plasma?

In the end it is still personal preference. I have just bought a 50 " Panasonic, as I have waited and waited on projectors - which are getting cheaper for better quality, but I'm still not convinced that the quality / price ratio is yet justified. I have set up an 8 seat Home movie theatre and the Pana still does nicely .....but I do want that large immersion that a big(ger) screen can bring. Eventually I'll get a projector - but not yet, and move the pana into the family room.

PS I really enjoyed reading the discussion above - it was very informative / interesting, even a bit techo. Could someone post the meanings of all the acronyms - I got most I think?

Regards

In the end it is still personal preference. I have just bought a 50 " Panasonic, as I have waited and waited on projectors - which are getting cheaper for better quality, but I'm still not convinced that the quality / price ratio is yet justified. I have set up an 8 seat Home movie theatre and the Pana still does nicely .....but I do want that large immersion that a big(ger) screen can bring. Eventually I'll get a projector - but not yet, and move the pana into the family room.

PS I really enjoyed reading the discussion above - it was very informative / interesting, even a bit techo. Could someone post the meanings of all the acronyms - I got most I think?

Regards

Have you seen a well setup front projection system in a light controlled theater?

These new higher end 1080P plasmas have an amazing picture, no doubt about that and in terms of picture quality I too doubt that even the best projectors can rival them. However, I am currently undergoing a fairly sizable upgrade to my 9 seat theater and wouldn't dream of giving up my new 12' wide scope screen with 1080P DLP for the best 60" plasma. But then again my goal has never been to achieve the best picture, but rather to capture the experience of the theater in my home. Watching a 12' wide scope picture at 12' is as close as I will get in a while and I love it. I will always be watching for the next best thing in projection to improve my picture quality but for now I am very happy with the picture quality I currently have.

Can the best FP compete with, or beat, a Kuro?

Yes, most definitely.

I suspect many of those who say or assume otherwise, just haven't seen the very best in FP, installed and setup properly. Im not talking about large screen immersion here, just pure plain PQ.

I've installed a number of 50" and 60" Kuros recently and found them to be exceptional , but the accuracy, colorimetry and processing of the best in FP still holds the day. Not to mention many times the surface area. Unfortunately, if people were honest, very few PJs that can do this would have an MSRP native to this section of AVS.

To quote Stalin, "Quantity has a quality all of its own".

This is the inescapable elephant in the middle of the thread. 60" would be neat for TV in the living room, but it's a non-starter for a "theatrical"-feeling presentation. Also, I prefer a 2.35:1 screen, which is strictly the province of FP.

This is the inescapable elephant in the middle of the thread. 60" would be neat for TV in the living room, but it's a non-starter for a "theatrical"-feeling presentation. .

+1

This is the inescapable elephant in the middle of the thread. 60" would be neat for TV in the living room, but it's a non-starter for a "theatrical"-feeling presentation. Also, I prefer a 2.35:1 screen, which is strictly the province of FP.

Well, I suppose one could sit 5-6 feet from a 60" Kuro plasma and have roughly the same immersive experience as sitting 10 feet from a 100" screen, no?

Well, I suppose one could sit 5-6 feet from a 60" Kuro plasma and have roughly the same immersive experience as sitting 10 feet from a 100" screen, no?

No, not even close, unfortunately.

The viewing angle may be the same, but you always know that you are just simply sitting close to a small TV.

Its the same when you compare an 8ft screen with a 14ft screen, both at a distance of 1sw. Same viewing angle, very different feel. Your brain has already taken in all the visual ques for scale from the room, or even before you get in the room.

The human brain, along with that of other animals, is very adept at estimating the size of an object based on its range and subtended angle. This works the other way too, if we know the size we can work out the range by its subtended angle.

This helps us assess predatory threats and prey opportunities. Your brain ALWAYS knows that an object 10 degrees wide from a distance of 3 feet is smaller than at 15 feet. This is subconscious and cant be short circuited.


Bring on the retinal implants.:)

Well, I suppose one could sit 5-6 feet from a 60" Kuro plasma and have roughly the same immersive experience as sitting 10 feet from a 100" screen, no?
As explained, while subtended angle may be the same, the "immersive experience" is far from it. Imagine it...does it really feel the same? The brain always knows if a picture is small or big. I can sit 3' from the 30" set in my living room...but there's no comparison.

Yep,

I can put DVD on my 20" iMac LCD screen and move my head close enough to mimic the field of view of a projected image, but this doesn't fool me for a second my monitor and the image on it has become "huge." The spaceships in Star Wars still look small.
When I was going to upgrade my plasma to a bigger model I tried many times to get the immersive feel by viewing from much closer. It was borrowing my friend's projector and viewing Alien and other space movies projected up to 10 feet wide on my wall that was the revelation: the spaceships actually DID look huge flying overhead.

(Of course it's still relative. Spend a bunch of time at someone else's place who has a much larger image and yours is going to seem smaller in comparison).

Can the best FP compete with, or beat, a Kuro?

Yes, most definitely.

I suspect many of those who say or assume otherwise, just haven't seen the very best in FP, installed and setup properly. Im not talking about large screen immersion here, just pure plain PQ.

I've installed a number of 50" and 60" Kuros recently and found them to be exceptional , but the accuracy, colorimetry and processing of the best in FP still holds the day. Not to mention many times the surface area. Unfortunately, if people were honest, very few PJs that can do this would have an MSRP native to this section of AVS.


I was one who doubted this but your right I have not seen the very best in FP so you very well may be right. I am curious as to what setup would you recommend to provide a better quality picture than a 60" Kuro? I am just wondering the cost of this setup screen size and recommended viewing distance.

As explained, while subtended angle may be the same, the "immersive experience" is far from it. Imagine it...does it really feel the same? The brain always knows if a picture is small or big. I can sit 3' from the 30" set in my living room...but there's no comparison.


I'll second that.

For me it's definately the immersive experience I get from a large screen even though the image quality is a little bit worse in my case. If the OP doesn't get that immersive kick from a big screen, then he'd be better off with a plasma.

This is the inescapable elephant in the middle of the thread. 60" would be neat for TV in the living room, but it's a non-starter for a "theatrical"-feeling presentation. Also, I prefer a 2.35:1 screen, which is strictly the province of FP.

I couldn't agree more.

if a person was comparing apples to apples (say 60" plasma and a 60" projected image in a proper room)...the front projection will most likely win out.EXACTLY!!

"Do any projectors beat plasma picture quality?"

Maybe the real question should be: Are there any plasmas that deliver the look and feel of the theater?

Five years of FP has me passing up every TV display I see on the showroom floors. All are decent, some excellent, but NONE deliver a theater experience that even comes close to FP. There's simply something about projection that has no equal. It's in a class all its own.
Also remember only FP allows you to cheat those distracting gray-black bars, when playing scoped movies, suffered by every other display type on the planet.

Even though there are some valid reasons why people would buy a plasma display over a front projector, mostly it's just ignorance.

Right on.

"Do any projectors beat plasma picture quality?"

Maybe the real question should be: Are there any plasmas that deliver the look and feel of the theater?

Five years of FP has me passing up every TV display I see on the showroom floors. All are decent, some excellent, but NONE deliver a theater experience that even comes close to FP. There's simply something about projection that has no equal. It's in a class all its own.
Also remember only FP allows you to cheat those distracting gray-black bars, when playing scoped movies, suffered by every other display type on the planet.

I have been using FP's for a little more than 5 years now, and I would not go back to TVs (plasmas or LCDs or whatever) for all the tea in China. But, the question remains: is replicating the `look and feel of the theater' the ultimate goal to reach in a home? That's not obvious to me. And, even if you were to answer positively, you would remain with the other question: `which theater?', I mean, `standard or digital?'

My own feeling is that front projection at home is willy nilly very different from the theatrical experience. It is less different than, say, viewing a movie on a plasma, but it is different nonetheless. The really basic questions are: what are movies and what do we like in them? I suspect the answers to these questions vary greatly from individual to individual.

Also, one may want to view other things than movies, from sport to TV series. Take Heroes or Battlestar Galactica. These were conceived (officially, at least) as TV programs. Does that mean they should be viewed only on TVs? If yes, do you think the creators (whoever they are) had plasmas, or LCDs in mind? What do THEY prefer? Does all that mean that enjoying Heroes or BSG widescreen on a full HD FP is `wrong' in any way?

This sort of debate reminds me of another one which raged a few years ago among old 78rpm collectors. Suppose you have the choice between listening to an old record (say, 1904) on a phonograph of the time and listening to an excellent digital transfer of that record,; what do you choose? The obvious purist answer seems to be: listen to the original record on the old phonograph. But playback of these records on modern phonographs gives you access to more info. (larger bandwidth) than on older phonographs, not to mention the fact that digital technology now enables you to erase at least some of the scratches of a damaged record without altering the musical signal. So, what do you choose? The most commonly admitted choice now is: listen directly to the old record (not a transfer), but on a new, modern equipement. So, do not filter anything digitally, but listen to the record with the piece of apparatus which reveals most of the stored signal, including parts which were not accessible to listeners in 1904.

Hope this long post gives food for thought!

As usual this forum misleads the consumer. The facts are the true advances in front projection technology are few and far between. In the past several years only two areas come to mind: the High Power screen and the JVC high contrast projectors. LED lighting will be the next and last breakthrough for quite some time.

Manufactures have been reducing their investment in Plasma technology. It is dying out. I'm waiting for the Home Theater type of commercial publications to directly compare the latest Samsung's A650/750 LCD series to plasmas. But for whatever reasons they are stalling in revealing the truth.

So to are others: the stores are now separating the LCDs from the plasma's to make direct simultaneous comparison impossible. For some strange reason :rolleyes: consumers prefer simultaneous high brightness and contrast, especially under ambient daytime conditions. Only LCD flat panels fit that bill. Careful selection (as the technology is rapidly changing) provides excellent black level and shadow detail.

Samsung is also leading the charge in providing superb Home Theater and PC convergence products with their Touch of Class (TOC) line. (Note: certain mass market retailers don't want to carry them because it ruins their selling low cost, ugly 720p house brand LCDs :mad:)

http://www.samsung.com/us/consumer/detail/spec.do?group=computersperipherals&type=monitors&subtype=lcd&model_cd=LS26TDNSUV/ZA&fullspec=F

But no one can stop progress. LCD is were the action is. Go over to the LCD forum and witness the many satisfied Samsung TOC owners. But wait, even better LED backlighting technology due in September with true huge contrast ratios.
Its a bit embarrassing for the commercial rags when even Consumer Reports gets it right:
"This A650 52-inch 1080p model from Samsung is one of the best TVs we've ever tested: Excellent picture quality across the board, with top-notch detail that makes the most of HD programming. Has very good color accuracy and better than average black levels. Contrast was very good, giving images depth and dimension. Excellent reproduction of scenes with subtly shaded light-to-dark areas. Excellent film-mode operation effectively eliminates jagged edges--"jaggies"-- on movie content. Has 120Hz technology that doubles the frame rate to reduce motion blur."

^^^^ "What an eccentric performance." :)

I've been heavily "in to" flat panels for years and continue to keep my eye out for new models in the stores. Unfortunately LCD panels, despite their brightness advantage, have never performed satisfactorily to my eyes. First, they all have this sort of "metallic" quality to the image (and often a blue tinge, especially in the lower gray scale...come can be calibrated mostly away, a lot of them can't). I think some of this metallic look has to do with how I've always been bothered by being able to see the screen structure of the LCD, it being a back-lit screen technology, it has a sort of version of the RPTV "silk screen effectl."

The best plasmas still have better, more solid black levels.
(It's not for nothing that the best plasmas continually get rated best for movie-watching by the majority of AV experts and reviewers).

And the killer for me is the off-axis performance of LCD flat panels. I can't stand how the image shifts luminance and contrast unless I'm directly "in the sweet spot" in front of the LCD. Every year LCD manufacturers claim to have made this a non-issue, advertising utterly false viewing angles.

Get an LCD with decent black levels, put a cinemascope film on (i.e. which will have black bars top bottom), view it in dark conditions (as I prefer to view) then start moving around the panel - watch those wonderful black levels rise and contrast start to fade, and illumination become uneven as you move out of the sweet spot. And I often end up somewhat to the side of the image when watching with family or guests.

So despite the yearly hype about LCDs my experience leaves me in a "believe it when I see it" mode. Give me a Pioneer Kuro any day.

"But, the question remains: is replicating the `look and feel of the theater' the ultimate goal to reach in a home? "

I like to think so, yes. That, at least in my mind is what 'home theater' is all about. For everything else, TV will do. Think of it as the 'right' tool for the job.

Even though there are some valid reasons why people would buy a plasma display over a front projector, mostly it's just ignorance.

Excuse me? Care to elaborate your wonderful post?
I doubt you will though, no good answers to a statement like that. :rolleys:

Well, I suppose one could sit 5-6 feet from a 60" Kuro plasma and have roughly the same immersive experience as sitting 10 feet from a 100" screen, no?

In a word, NO!

Sorry. It's just the way it is.
Conversely, the reverse holds more water. Should you sit W-A-Y back in the theater, the screen does take on a TV viewing effect. Go figure.

While my TV is a Samsung 71 series LCD, I thought I would throw in these pictures I took a little while back. I was having a problem with the LCD pictures because its just so bright in an almost perfectly dark room.


http://www.silverti.com/ht/March%203,%202008/DSC03973.JPG


Pictures with Both the projector and LCD. A the top you can see that the screen is down a few feet.

http://www.silverti.com/ht/March%203,%202008/DSC03926.JPG

This one show the dif in blacks.

http://www.silverti.com/ht/March%203,%202008/DSC03942.JPG

http://www.silverti.com/ht/March%203,%202008/DSC03944.JPG

http://www.silverti.com/ht/March%203,%202008/DSC03948.JPG


Full 133" Screen.

http://www.silverti.com/ht/March%203,%202008/DSC03951.JPG


Full 46" LCD

http://www.silverti.com/ht/March%203,%202008/DSC03969.JPG

LCD Zoomed up (only way to get good picture)

http://www.silverti.com/ht/March%203,%202008/DSC03971.JPG

In a word, NO!

Sorry. It's just the way it is.
Conversely, the reverse holds more water. Should you sit W-A-Y back in the theater, the screen does take on a TV viewing effect. Go figure.

Sorry, can you (or someone else) explain this rather than simply asserting it? Seating distance determines viewing angle, so theoretically, one should be able to sit closer to a smaller screen and get the same viewing experience as sitting farther back from a larger screen. A number of viewing distance calculators suggest this. What is wrong with this logic? Please explain.

Sorry, can you (or someone else) explain this rather than simply asserting it? Seating distance determines viewing angle, so theoretically, one should be able to sit closer to a smaller screen and get the same viewing experience as sitting farther back from a larger screen. A number of viewing distance calculators suggest this. What is wrong with this logic? Please explain.

"In a word..."

I know it defies logic and the numbers simply do not compute, but your brain registers a different experience. Take a trip to the local cinema sitting 1.5x the screen width then come home and do the same with a TV. Now, you tell me.

Sorry, can you (or someone else) explain this rather than simply asserting it? Seating distance determines viewing angle, so theoretically, one should be able to sit closer to a smaller screen and get the same viewing experience as sitting farther back from a larger screen. A number of viewing distance calculators suggest this. What is wrong with this logic? Please explain.

I explained it in post #47. Its the way your brain assesses size. Its very simple, I'll repeat it......

"The viewing angle may be the same, but you always know that you are just simply sitting close to a small TV.

Its the same when you compare an 8ft screen with a 14ft screen, both at a distance of 1sw. Same viewing angle, very different feel. Your brain has already taken in all the visual ques for scale from the room, or even before you get in the room.

The human brain, along with that of other animals, is very adept at estimating the size of an object based on its range and subtended angle. This works the other way too, if we know the size we can work out the range by its subtended angle.

This helps us assess predatory threats and prey opportunities. Your brain ALWAYS knows that an object 10 degrees wide from a distance of 3 feet is smaller than a 10 degree object at 15 feet. This is subconscious and cant be short circuited."

hope this helps

Sorry, can you (or someone else) explain this rather than simply asserting it? Seating distance determines viewing angle, so theoretically, one should be able to sit closer to a smaller screen and get the same viewing experience as sitting farther back from a larger screen. A number of viewing distance calculators suggest this. What is wrong with this logic? Please explain.

Pedro, the amount of your visual field an object takes up is not the only
cue the brain uses to determine size. (Our parallax system being only one).If you put your head close to these words on your monitor your brain will say "close to small letters" not "Whoa, the letters have now swelled to the size of a billboard." Similarly, looking at a building from a distance doesn't fool your brain it's become tiny.

If mere proximity was all that determined our perception of size, think of the chaos to how you would perceive the world! That's why you can put your face up close to your computer monitor and not be fooled into thinking you are now watching a giant movie screen.

^^^ Yep. The brain knows how much it's having to flex the lens in your eyes and it knows how much it's having to cross your eyes.

It can easily tell the difference between focusing on a big object at (essentially) infinity and focusing on a close, small object which subtends the same angle.

Plasma picture quality is better than FP, I can't argue with that. But I've had a FP home theater for about 5 years and there's no going back. When I'm in my light controlled home theater watching a 1080p PROJECTED image it's a totally immersive experience that doesn't feel like I'm watching TV. A 60" plasma has an amazing picture but it's only marginally better than a good FP and I still feel like I'm watching television.

^^^^ "What an eccentric performance." :)

I've been heavily "in to" flat panels for years and continue to keep my eye out for new models in the stores. Unfortunately LCD panels, despite their brightness advantage, have never performed satisfactorily to my eyes. First, they all have this sort of "metallic" quality to the image (and often a blue tinge, especially in the lower gray scale...come can be calibrated mostly away, a lot of them can't).

The best plasmas still have better, more solid black levels.(It's not for nothing that the best plasmas continually get rated best for movie-watching by the majority of AV experts and reviewers).

So despite the yearly hype about LCDs my experience leaves me in a "believe it when I see it" mode. Give me a Pioneer Kuro any day.
I've never heard a description of "metallic" quality. Reminds me of another member (who is never at a loss of words) stating he sometimes didn't care for the High Power screen, but could not explain himself either. :)
Thinking back, our Alan was very big into LCD panels many years ago - especially Sharp. I thought they were overpriced with poor image quality. Now the tables have turned?
Samsung is the new Sony. They are producing top notch panels from 19" computers to 57" screens. All sizes can be purchased with DVI and HDMI inputs with built-in HD tuners.
The LCD owners are a very picky bunch yet they are quite pleased with the A650/750 series, especially being half the price of the Kuro plasma. The new LCD back light panels should blow away plasma which explains why technology investments in plasma have largely dried up. At least plasma manufactures realize the handwriting on the wall.
Don't fall for the line that plasmas "get rated best for movie-watching by the majority of AV experts and reviewers" as there has been too much consolation in the magazine business here in America. Realize that just a few people control what gets published in several national magazines. Plasma's may be adequate in a completely dark room, but even in this situation the whites are pathetic. Its like having a 500w power amplifier with a 100w power supply. Clip, Clip Clip them whites.

I've never heard a description of "metallic" quality. Reminds me of another member (who is never at a loss of words) stating he sometimes didn't care for the High Power screen, but could not explain himself either. :)

Well, it's hard to explain something to someone who isn't listening. I explained (which you cut out) what I felt contributed to this perception: a bluish cast to the images combined with the fact I perceive the screen structure "sheen" overlaying LCD images (being, as I said, a technology that is a screen with a light illuminating the screen from the rear). I'm seeing exactly that gritty overlay on my old and my new iMac 20" and my new 24" screen, and I see it in virtually ever LCD in the stores, including the latest Sony/Samsung/Toshiba etc.

Whether anyone else notices it or is bothered by it...I don't really care. Some things stick out to some folk, others to other folk.


Don't fall for the line that plasmas "get rated best for movie-watching by the majority of AV experts and reviewers" as there has been too much consolation in the magazine business here in America. Realize that just a few people control what gets published in several national magazines.

Sorry but once a poster brings in conspiracy theories, credibility for his case suffers. Having been involved in reviewing audio before, and being plugged into that side of the industry, I could see just how over-blown all the audiophile paranoia was about "bought reviews" and other fears.


Plasma's may be adequate in a completely dark room,

Actually the newest are wonderful in dark rooms...better than any LCD
I've seen, which tend to be inadequate in dark rooms, in my (and many other people's) opinion.

but even in this situation the whites are pathetic. Its like having a 500w power amplifier with a 100w power supply. Clip, Clip Clip them whites.

What do you mean by "pathetic?" I have not seen any technical reviews stating the latest plasmas have some failing in terms of clipping whites (which is an image detail issue) vs LCD. ETA: Note even in reviewing a non-top-of-the-line plasma (Samsung) in the test section of the review Ultimate AV "This TV did not clip or "crush" whites even with the contrast turned all the way up to 100. As a result, achieving sufficient light output won't be a problem for all but the most ridiculous full-daylight viewing conditions."

Further, having viewed many LCDs and plasmas in lights out conditions, LCDs are WAY TO BRIGHT for lights out viewing. They are scorching, like staring into a flashlight in the dark. In order for any level of viewing comfort you have to turn down the scorching light levels to non-retina searing levels and in doing so...guess what....compromising the contrast. This issue is one reason why black levels have been such a
prominant issue in home theater displays, because in dark "home theater" conditions super high brightness can get uncomfortable, and as such you get your contrast via lower black levels.

For most people's comfort in a dark room you'd have to lower the peak brightness of, say, a Pioneer Kuro plasma, as you would any LCD. But once you've done that it's the plasma with it's lower black levels which will maintain higher contrast and a deeper overall image, while being comfortable to view.

And, again, that's not to even bring up the contrast-lowering effect of moving off center from an LCD flat screen (something that drives me nuts).

(That's all I need to say about plasma vs LCD I think. Back to plasma vs projection...)

Cheers,

Sorry, can you (or someone else) explain this rather than simply asserting it? Seating distance determines viewing angle, so theoretically, one should be able to sit closer to a smaller screen and get the same viewing experience as sitting farther back from a larger screen.
Do you really feel that sitting close to a small screen gives the same "viewing experience"?
Same field-of-view, perhaps (your calculators can tell you that), but the same "experience"? Does it really feel the same to you? I don't think anyone needs to explain it, easy enough to try.

Sorry, can you (or someone else) explain this rather than simply asserting it? Seating distance determines viewing angle, so theoretically, one should be able to sit closer to a smaller screen and get the same viewing experience as sitting farther back from a larger screen. A number of viewing distance calculators suggest this. What is wrong with this logic? Please explain.
I don't think anyone HAS to explain it. If sitting close to a small screen pleases you, then do it. People who like big screens will do that.

I've never heard a description of "metallic" quality.

I feel the same way. I experience the colors of an LCD flat screen sort of like the way I experience the metallic look of a tropical fish.

I've always expressed a preference for a better picture over a bigger picture, but that was before the most recent advances in front projection, which have been a quantum leap forward, IMO.

When I read the projector forums and I read people saying bigger is ALWAYS better, I thought, "maybe for you, but not me." I heard the term "immersive experience" and I thought it was a bunch of hooey.

I was still on the fence until I sat 1.4 X screen width away from a 10' wide screen in a friend's home theater with a current model projector.

Words cannot express it -- go out and experience it.

It'll either sing to you, or it won't.

I'm betting it will.

I don't think anyone HAS to explain it. If sitting close to a small screen pleases you, then do it. People who like big screens will do that.
Actually I like close sitting to a large screen. In my theater I sit 1.2xwidth (110") with my CRT FP running 1080P or 1080i.

I have a Toshiba LCD 720p and the new Kuro. Plasma has a better picture but the difference (even being 1080p) is not really that much. With the Toshiba you just reduce back light in order to achieve the desired black level and leave the contrast at the calibrated value. It works but the new Elite has a higher on/off CR due to its lower black. In semi light room at about 2x width they look very similar.

Actually I like close sitting to a large screen. In my theater I sit 1.2xwidth (110") with my CRT FP running 1080P or 1080i.

This is my preference too. I sit 1.0x width (front row) from a 10' screen when watching 2.35 material. I sit 1.6x (back row) for 16:9 material.

I experience the colors of an LCD flat screen sort of like the way I experience the metallic look of a tropical fish.Ditto.

Excuse me? Care to elaborate your wonderful post?
I doubt you will though, no good answers to a statement like that. :rolleys:

I don't know if I necessarily agree with my statement, I posted to get a reaction, my bad. In any case alot of front projector owners pretty much claim outright that front projector provides a far superior viewing experience and in so many words imply that people who buy direct view displays are just unaware of the virtues of this technology.

alot of front projector owners [...] imply that people who buy direct view displays are just unaware of the virtues of this technology.That is correct. Most of them have never seen a front projector.

Well, I suppose one could sit 5-6 feet from a 60" Kuro plasma and have roughly the same immersive experience as sitting 10 feet from a 100" screen, no?

size matters. david lynch explains ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0

So...what became of the OP. doogiehowser? Is he out shopping for a KURO? Or, did we reach him?

Well, it's hard to explain something to someone who isn't listening.
Cheers,
First metallic and now gritty. I’ve never seen these issues raised in any review before.
I talk of factual magazine ownership and you change it into conspiracies.:confused:

The whites on the Pioneer Kuro decrease by a factor of 3:1 when displaying a full white field as compared to a small patch of white. Thus the contrast also degrades by 3:1. As a result the real world contrast is no better than the best of LCD.
What magazines report traditional full field contrast or use a special small white patch to goose the plasma contrast numbers? Consider reading the startling Kuro review in WSR. (The complete truth does occasionally come out).
Hey, WSR even stated the HP screen look great, even while Joe Kane was still pushing his expensive grey screens (a band-aid relic for projectors with poor black levels).

This thread is another good example of this forum. As for me I strive for a balanced approach to Accuracy in Media. Profit considerations are not allowed.

I like plasma: well some plasmas, Pioneer and Panasonic are high quality , the rest I wouldn't bother with.

I'd have a hard time saying that even a very good plasma outperforms a good projector in just about any area of image quality. All plasma exhibit dither for a start ( although not usually distracting at normal viewing distances.

A plasma for impressive casual viewing and a projector for serious viewing is a very good combo.

I decided to do a little experiment this weekend and pulled my projector down and placed it close enough to the screen to reduce the size down to 60" and I do have to say the image looks very good and my projector is far from the best projectors out there. In fact for that size I am sure an RS2 would look far better than my IN83 as the contrast is so much better and brightness is not an issue at that size.

I wish I would have had a good 60" 1080p plasma to compare to but I didn't. I have a friend that has a new 60" Kuro and I would say that the image from that still looked more pleasing to my memory. I would also say that my choice of words in the last sentence is also why one will continue to argue the virtues of any display over that of another. Some people find LCD more pleasing than, Plasma, or they simply find a brighter picture more pleasing, this doesn't mean it is better but it is for them.

Now, I don't think many people are going to buy a projector for a 60" screen, so for the most part people are going to compare that 60" Kuro to a 100" or bigger FP setup. The bottom line is that for most the smaller the image the more pleasing the image will be in terms of image quality. But then one would argue that image quality doesn't change with size but I would argue the visible quality does. For instance the quantifiable qualities that contribute to picture quality remain for the most part constant as the screen size increases and viewing distance remains constant. However, the picture quality looks better to me at smaller sizes. So the resolution is the same, CR same, color calibration the same, and any artifacts should be the same. The issue is that those artifacts may not be visible at a given viewing distance for a 60" image that are made visible as the image size increases.

So my guess would be that for the OP there is not going to be a comparatively priced projection setup that will give him the same visible picture quality. I believe the OP needs to see how good a well setup 1080P FP system can look and then decide if that is acceptable to get the big screen. He then needs to decide if he wants to go through the trouble to setup an environment in his home to host a well setup front projection system. If your plan is to put it in your average living room or family room with no light control then the plasma is going to simply look a lot better than a washed out projected image.

Now, I don't think many people are going to buy a projector for a 60" screen, so for the most part people are going to compare that 60" Kuro to a 100" or bigger FP setup. The bottom line is that for most the smaller the image the more pleasing the image will be in terms of image quality.

So my guess would be that for the OP there is not going to be a comparatively priced projection setup that will give him the same visible picture quality. I believe the OP needs to see how good a well setup 1080P FP system can look and then decide if that is acceptable to get the big screen. He then needs to decide if he wants to go through the trouble to setup an environment in his home to host a well setup front projection system. If your plan is to put it in your average living room or family room with no light control then the plasma is going to simply look a lot better than a washed out projected image.
You make some good points... however
Anything which limits or changes the natural dynamic range of the input signal should be avoided. Especially when better solutions are available.

Smaller does not mean better quality. Bigger is usually better than smaller if you stay within the SMPTE brightness standards.

I realize that almost anyone will not sacrifice time in their daily routine to sit in a completely dark room for two hours. Instead consider that when I came home from work yesterday, Steve Mcqueen's Papillon just happened to be on HDNet in 1080i. I cranked up the 1973 soundtrack with my new audiophile Mackie FRS resonant switching power supply amplifiers set to commercial movie theater levels and enjoyed the glorious picture, sound and pretty island girls right in the front room. :) The wife talked on the phone in the kitchen. The ambient light actually served to improved the perception of black on a 65" 1:1 LCD display.

Combine convenience, quality at good prices and you have a runaway best selling technology. That is LCD today.

A 120" screen offers a different experience but it largely depends on the seating distance. Remember projected images are always degraded by the optical system compared to the literally perfect sharpness of an LCD panels. Many here continue to chase perfect sharpness when its already available - when not projected.

Its curious that manufactures sell 2560*1600 flat panels for close-up viewing with even higher resolutions on the way. Everything has its place. :)

Combine convenience, quality at good prices and you have a runaway best selling technology. That is LCD today.

You are sounding like a pitch-man for LCD. Perhaps it's time to join the conspiracy minded and assume you are being paid by someone to come on these forums and hype LCD. ;)

Remember projected images are always degraded by the optical system compared to the literally perfect sharpness of an LCD panels. Many here continue to chase perfect sharpness when its already available - when not projected.


And if sharpness were the driving factor in enjoying movies I could be happy with a small tube set and an SD DVD player.

But as far as sharpness goes, I already find the sharpness available from a number of projectors to be mind-blowing. (And that's coming from someone who lived in the flat panel world for years - and I've watched DVD and HD-DVD/Blu Ray content under controlled conditions on countless flat panels, including 65" LCD and Plasmas). Yes you do start to "stress" program material in general when you start watching the image blown up
to 10 feet wide or so. However, something like the Sharp Z20000K single chip DLP can produce an astoundingly sharp image at 100" diagonal with HD content. I compared it directly to a bunch of flat panels and there was barely a difference in sharpness to be seen; it was like a super-sharp flat panel image had been blown up to 100" diagonal - all the detail but at that size the detail was easier to see (e.g. small or far away details) and the image much more immersive.

There are a number of projection set ups I've seen where I would certainly not be left chasing sharpness. If anything, I might want them a bit less sharp looking, at least for some film content.

There are a number of projection set ups I've seen where I would certainly not be left chasing sharpness. If anything, I might want them a bit less sharp looking, at least for some film content.

If the source material is razor sharp, my dVision 1080p projects it razor sharp even 118" wide. I don't think I've seen any flat panel display that looked sharper.

If the source material is razor sharp, my dVision 1080p projects it razor sharp even 118" wide. I don't think I've seen any flat panel display that looked sharper.

Yeah, I've seen some of the same content on some projectors, I keep coming back to the Sharp Z20000K, that looked as sharply defined as any image I've seen, even as sharp or sharper than on the nearby flat panels.

Hey, this thread is exactly what I needed to read, but still could use some more feedback.

My wife just approved a budget for about $4K on our downstairs "entertainment" room. My first thought was, "Whoa! I gotta grab the new Pioneer Kuro 6020", because for me, PQ is everything, and the Kuro gets 'er done in the PQ department. (I'm coming from CRT blacks)

I figured I could adjust my seating so that I'm closer to the 60" Kuro than if I had went the PJ route and sat further back from a 100" screen. (I have a very flexible room for seating, etc.)

Anyway, now I'm rethinking this concept.

I know it's a weird apple/oranges comparison, but what would be better in a total bat cave environment that can handle either setup:

1. Pio Kuro 6020 (60") or
2. Epson 1080UB (on a 100" Elite Fixed Frame Grey Screen)?

I guess my question is whether or not the 1080UB will have "near-as-good" PQ as the Kuro and much more size to boot? Will the size just overwhelm the difference in blacks and contrast between the Kuro and the UB?

If I go with option #2, I can apply the extra $800 or so that I save by not buying the Kuro and apply that cash towards an SVS sub and a nice center channel to compliment my other gear. Or maybe step up my AVR to one that can handle TrueHD too.

So, that's my delimna and I ask you, fellow reader: Go BIG or go PQ? :confused:

If I go with option #2, I can apply the extra $800 or so that I save by not buying the Kuro and apply that cash towards an SVS sub and a nice center channel to compliment my other gear. Or maybe step up my AVR to one that can handle TrueHD too.

GO BIG! And get the big SVS sub. Man, I'm telling you, once you go BIG, you'll never go back!! heck, got 6 friends coming over tonite for a movie party - everybody loves it BIG!!! :)

BIG is beautiful...:)

whether or not the 1080UB will have "near-as-good" PQ as the Kuro and much more size to boot?

Yes and yes.

Will the size just overwhelm the difference in blacks and contrast between the Kuro and the UB?

Yes.

[So, that's my delimna and I ask you, fellow reader: Go BIG or go PQ? :confused:

Go Big!

I think you'll be astounded at the picture quality you can get for the money with today's projectors. Go out and see a few, but make sure you see the projector in a decent set-up. Sometimes retail outlets like Magnolia Hifi will have projectors on display, but they will have them in rooms with white screens and ambient light pouring in, which tells you nothing about the kind of picture quality you can expect. Call around and you might have to drive a ways -- if you put out a query, maybe you can find a fellow AVS'er in your area who will invite you over and demo his projector for you.

Yep... go BIG! But remember you posted this question in a front projector thread, so... what did you expect to hear? :) You should ask in one of the plasma threads.

I think you'll be astounded at the picture quality you can get for the money with today's projectors.

I totally agree!!

if you put out a query, maybe you can find a fellow AVS'er in your area who will invite you over and demo his projector for you.

Having been disappointed many times at " home theater stores ", this is the best way to demo gear if you can!

One more thing;

To the guy who was asking if a home theater projector could compete with IMAX.

I went to see The Dark Knight at the local IMAX and the picture was huge, but the blacks were milky and hazy. I don't know if they were using 70mm or DLP, but the picture was not that great.

At reasonable sizes, I will say again -- you can beat commercial movie theater picture quality with a home theater projector.

Hey, this thread is exactly what I needed to read, but still could use some more feedback.


So, that's my delimna and I ask you, fellow reader: Go BIG or go PQ? :confused:

I believe most here would agree, today's home theater FP technology sacrifices very little in PQ and still affords the BIG image unattainable anywhere else. In fact, a budget 720p properly set up with HDM will floor you.
You'll wrestle with light control and perhaps bulb issues, but, PQ won't be on your mind as you really get into the movie.

Go BIG or go PQ? :confused:
As a general plasma rule the bigger the screen the less bright it is. Bigger is not always better.
Why choose just one technology? I'd buy both (over time) as its great fun.
Though I would not put a TV in the bedroom as it interferes with ones health.

I believe most here would agree, today's home theater FP technology sacrifices very little in PQ and still affords the BIG image unattainable anywhere else. In fact, a budget 720p properly set up with HDM will floor you.
You'll wrestle with light control and perhaps bulb issues, but, PQ won't be on your mind as you really get into the movie.

Not long ago my Brother In Law was telling me how happy he and his wife were watching movies on their new 40" (or so) Sharp LCD widescreen TV.
Then when he spotted a fairly mediocre business projector I'd borrowed, to test image sizes on my wall, he asked if he could see a movie projected on the wall. I complied, put on Transformers which he'd recently watched in his home and he was like "whoa...wow...this is really amazing. It seems this is the way to watch movies." When he left he was asking all about projectors and asking if I could advise him so he could get a decent one for his place.

It's hard to discount the sensation of seeing a huge movie image in a home.

This is beginning to sound like testimonials at a revival meeting! But I will certainly add my own. I had a 60" (Sammy) dlp rptv, then a 73" (Mits), and liked them both, but finally decided I wanted the 'really big screen'. After reading lots of threads here about pj's and screens for months, I got a RS1 and 126" HP screen about 1.5 yrs ago and could NEVER go back. I've gradually customized my room to make it more and more amenable to FP--with my wife's consent, since she really likes it too--and it's still fun to see friends and relatives eyes pop out when they first see it. And I still can't stop grinning when a high quality hdtv or BR pic is on it.

PS And the pic is definitely better--even apart from size--that that of the rptv's.

I would rather sacrifice a negligible (to my eyes) amount of contrast and "pop" for a screen size that could fit three or four 60" plasmas inside of it. I've been over to numerous houses that have really nice plasmas in them. For the size of rooms those people have, they look like little tvs to me. I still go home laughing as I turn on my projector (knowing full well I paid a significant sum less than those with the plasmas) and load one of my favourite movies on a 120" "screen" that I painted on the wall. Talk about wow factor.

So no, I don't think that most projectors will beat a good plasma in terms of picture quality. At the same time, I don't think you will find anyone that would rather watch a 60" plasma vs a 100+" projected image based on subtle differences in black levels, sharpness, etc. Unless, of course, they don't mind sitting two or three feet in front of the tv. ;)

I cranked up the 1973 soundtrack ..... to commercial movie theater levels and enjoyed the glorious picture, sound and pretty island girls right in the front room. :) The wife talked on the phone in the kitchen.


Your credibility is totally shot. Nobody's wife is going to let them do this while they're on the phone.

Yes...Projectors rule!...;)

I'll never forget walking into the grand opening of an Ultimate Electronics with my parents for no other reason than having nothing better to do that day. I was looking at the sweet flat panels when mom walks out of this black room and tells me not to go in there. So I went in there, and there was Lord of the Rings playing on a Sharp Z10000 on a 133in screen right at the big epic shot of Gandalf on Sarumans tower. Having never heard of projectors, I left that room scheming to recreate that room lol. Plus I remember as a kid wanting badly to have a commercial cinema as my bedroom lol.

As far as I'm concerned, a big projection screen is the only way to truely experience a movie. I worked in Best Buy for a while(till booted for not selling Monster cable, and fixing fake demo displays), and the best TV was the 52in LCD Samsung with 120hz. I remember we were showing Spiderman 3 on it, so I memorized a few scenes, compared them on my RS1, and found the RS1 to be as sharp, if not a bit sharper at 147in! I'm not exadgerating, I was fully expecting the Samsung to produce a sharper image, but going back and forth several times revealed mine was as sharp from the seating position... Plus being fed a 1080p24 signal it looked more natural than the 120hz effect.

It's hard to discount the sensation of seeing a huge movie image in a home.
It's impossible, actually. Size is an intrinsic part of "quality" when you're trying to reproduce the movie-theater experience. Plasmas make great TV's, though.

On the contray, There are more people out there that prefer watching movies in light room on a plasma/LCD flat panel in their house. Concept of dedicated room/fp set up is too extreme for them. :)

On the contray, There are more people out there that prefer watching movies in light room on a plasma/LCD flat panel in their house. Concept of dedicated room/fp set up is too extreme for them. :)


That's no doubt true. Still, in my experience guests really do appreciate the increase in viewing quality that occurs when you watch an image under dark conditions.

I always turned the lights out to watch movies on my plasma because the image looked best that way and because it made that change from "watching TV mode" to "watching movies," replicating the mind-set of the cinema.

I even used masking for 2:35:1 film content. :)

My guests always liked the way films were viewed at my place and commented positively on the increased image quality as I experimented with masking, black backdrops etc.

I'd even turn the lights down for the final fights during a UFC gathering at my place. They appreciated the difference so much - the way the image floated in the air and the focus it gave - that they began to ask the lights go off arond the same time whenever we watched those events.

Given my proclivity for watching in the dark it was a natural move for me into front projection. But I find it interesting that guests enjoyed it as I did.

On the contray, There are more people out there that prefer watching movies in light room on a plasma/LCD flat panel in their house.

And if it weren't for them dang black bars, it'd be perfect. ;)

I guess my question is whether or not the 1080UB will have "near-as-good" PQ as the Kuro and much more size to boot? Will the size just overwhelm the difference in blacks and contrast between the Kuro and the UB?

If I go with option #2, I can apply the extra $800 or so that I save by not buying the Kuro and apply that cash towards an SVS sub and a nice center channel to compliment my other gear. Or maybe step up my AVR to one that can handle TrueHD too.

So last night I had 6 friends over. Two of them had never seen a movie in our theater. They kept looking over and smiling every time they could feel the bass shake the room during The Fifth Element ( which two over friends had never seen - unbelievable !! ). I have one of those SVS tube subs that looks like a four foot high mortar ( bought right here at AVS ) - they kick a#* for the money!! And The Fifth Element looks spectacular on Blu Ray. My point? GO BIG and get the BIG SUBWOOFER !!!

I have 2 HT systems. A dedicated HT w/a 1080p DLP proj and a 100" screen. I also have a HT in my bedroom w/a 720p DLP proj. and a 73" screen (max. that could fit).

Based on this thread, I am seriously considering getting the new Panasonic 65" TH-65PZ850 to replace the proj./screen in my bedroom. I would be trading a 15% loss in picture size to get 1080p and Plasma.

Any thoughts, comments, recommendations?

I have 2 HT systems. A dedicated HT w/a 1080p DLP proj and a 100" screen. I also have a HT in my bedroom w/a 720p DLP proj. and a 73" screen (max. that could fit).

Based on this thread, I am seriously considering getting the new Panasonic 65" TH-65PZ850 to replace the proj./screen in my bedroom. I would be trading a 15% loss in picture size to get 1080p and Plasma.

Any thoughts, comments, recommendations?

65" for bed room!!? Cool. But make sure it is the right size.
I have one in my living (50" Elite), one in my kids room and one in my office/compute room (both 42" Toshiba LCD). It works fine. HT is in the basement.

Your credibility is totally shot. Nobody's wife is going to let them do this while they're on the phone.
Cell phones are designed to be superior in rejecting off-axis interference.
Papillon has some loud parts but it ain't no Transformers.

This thread is really humorous when pictures are posted overexposing the LCD image. One could easily make the projected image look like a wimpy dark shadow, but I don't take cheap-shots.

Instead, I recall the experts recommending to potential projector buyers to sit in the dark room first for 15 minutes to let there eyes adjust, because the 100 lumen $1-3K projector bulb was so darn dim. Truly the dark ages :o

On the contray, There are more people out there that prefer watching movies in light room on a plasma/LCD flat panel in their house. Concept of dedicated room/fp set up is too extreme for them. :)

Point taken. Their loss, not ours. A shame when you think about it.

A shame when you think about it.Having bigger ambition for others than they have for themselves has always been a character flaw of mine.

Today I was looking at plasmas, LCDs and projection in a local big, high-end AV store. Unlike the typical blazing-bright big box store, they actually have the displays under good (dark) lighting conditions without direct light and often with some decent calibration. Because I've done lots of business with this store, and introduced lots of business, they are quite happy about letting me check out any new gear they get in.

Sitting in one cove was the 65" Panasonic plasma, several other smaller plasmas, and a spanking new Sony LCD (40 inchish) flat panel near the Panasonic. Boy did the liabilities of the LCD ever stand out compared to the plasma, once you don't have those blazing Best Buy lighting. Year after year I'm told that LCDs "now have great viewing angles." But nope....the Sony was very washed out compared to the plasma from almost any angle except close to straight on. Once in the sweet spot it's image looked rich, but outside...blah-city. I may as well have been viewing the cheapest old LCD the contrast and color were so compromised.

Anyway, more pertinent to the thread: I also viewed a bit of Blu Ray and some DVDs on the Mitsubishi 6000 LCD 1080p projector. First thing: Boy does light decor ever compromise the black levels and richness of a projected image. It looked great, but it was very obvious how much better the image would be if the nearby ceiling and walls weren't virtually white. With a black star field the black levels looked quite deep.
But as soon as a spaceship or anything brighter started to enter the scene I watched the black levels rise considerably and become utterly mediocre, due to reflections from the light walls/ceiling.

But aside from that: Wow what an image. Even DVDs on this screen (I'm guessing 94" or above) were super sharp, almost HD-like. There was just tons of subtle detail, shadow detail, color detail that I was seeing in this image, on my trusty test DVDs, that I've rarely seen before. It definitely showed things I've never noticed in those images on my plasma. And the image seemed as subjectively sharp as a flat panel too, which blew me away. (I know the Mits is known for a sharp image).

Man I can't wait to get my projector!

Full 133" Screen.

http://www.silverti.com/ht/March%203,%202008/DSC03951.JPG

LCD Zoomed up (only way to get good picture)

http://www.silverti.com/ht/March%203,%202008/DSC03971.JPG

You just sold me on getting an FP. I own a Samsung 4071F (which I truly love, and as an owner of a 71, you can probably attest to it having great PQ even in a dark room), and seeing your pics just totally made my day. I was debating between a plasma or an FP, and seriously....you made the decision for me.

However, my budget is sub-$3000 (around there). I came on this forum, because I know how much cheaper things are online compared to MSRP's.

Having bigger ambition for others than they have for themselves has always been a character flaw of mine.

Well.. they don't know what they'er missing is what he says!:)
Both flat panesl and pjs have their own and use. None would replace the other in my view.

If I go with option #2, I can apply the extra $800 or so that I save by not buying the Kuro and apply that cash towards an SVS sub and a nice center channel to compliment my other gear.

A pj over Kuro and an Epik/elemental designs sub over svs!

Just another note on this general issue:

Not long after viewing Blu Ray and DVDs on the Mitsubishi 6000 projector I sat again in front of the giant 103" diag Panasonic plasma, which was playing the Blu Ray of planet earth. Two observations:

1. This is a repeat of what I've said before, but a plasma this size simply produces an image that no projector I've seen can produce. That is a consistent depth, solidity and realism to the image - that sense of real objects passing in front of you, or looking through a window at real life. The shots of mountains, which I've seen on plenty of projectors, was just jaw dropping on the plasma for you-are-thereness. Same with the realism and 3D effect of the elephant scenes. Like being at the zoo.

2. The image on this 103" plasma wasn't as sharp as one might expect. When people talk about flat panel advantages over projection one area concerns image clarity/sharpness, where the plasma at least ought to have an obvious advantage in using discrete pixels in a direct-view format. Whereas a projected image often has alignment issues and also must pass through various optic systems that will reduce, in various ways, the precision of the image.

But for whatever reason this plasma, while sharp, doesn't look as sharp as the best projectors I've seen. It's hard to say why. Processing perhaps? But it was receiving a 1080p signal, so that wouldn't seem to be much of a factor (in terms of deinterlacing, pixel mapping etc). What amazed me is that good quality DVDs on the Mits projector actually struck me as noticeably sharper than the Planet Earth Blu Ray on the big plasma! (excepting tiny background details that always suffer in SD). I've been quite amazed at the clarity of a good projector.

That said, the plasma made up for not having the ultimate in sharpness by it's amazingly convincing sense of realism in other areas, as described above.

Even DVDs on this screen (I'm guessing 94" or above) were super sharp, almost HD-like. There was just tons of subtle detail, shadow detail, color detail that I was seeing in this image, on my trusty test DVDs, that I've rarely seen before. It definitely showed things I've never noticed in those images on my plasma. And the image seemed as subjectively sharp as a flat panel too, which blew me away. (I know the Mits is known for a sharp image).

Man I can't wait to get my projector!

Perhaps the DVDs looked particularly good because of the built in Reon processor on the Mitsubishi--a real advantage of this particular projector that seems to be often overlooked.

As always, Rich, your comments are interesting and insightful.

Anyway, more pertinent to the thread: I also viewed a bit of Blu Ray and some DVDs on the Mitsubishi 6000 LCD 1080p projector. First thing: Boy does light decor ever compromise the black levels and richness of a projected image. It looked great, but it was very obvious how much better the image would be if the nearby ceiling and walls weren't virtually white. With a black star field the black levels looked quite deep.
But as soon as a spaceship or anything brighter started to enter the scene I watched the black levels rise considerably and become utterly mediocre, due to reflections from the light walls/ceiling.

But aside from that: Wow what an image. Even DVDs on this screen (I'm guessing 94" or above) were super sharp, almost HD-like. There was just tons of subtle detail, shadow detail, color detail that I was seeing in this image, on my trusty test DVDs, that I've rarely seen before. It definitely showed things I've never noticed in those images on my plasma. And the image seemed as subjectively sharp as a flat panel too, which blew me away. (I know the Mits is known for a sharp image).

Man I can't wait to get my projector!

Nice to read about the projector I own

Is there any $6,000 projector that can produce a 14-17 foot bright vibrant picture on a screen in a room that has one light bulb in a bar at the opposite end of the room?

How much money would it cost to buy a projector that is capable of producing a plasma like picture on a 14-17 foot screen in a room that is not completely dark?

You could try RS1 or some of the better DLP's with a high power screen, although I'm not sure if Da-Lite makes 14-17 feet screens. They can always make a custom screen but that might cost extra.

This is a very interesting thread.

I have an 8G Pioneer Elite plasma. The pq on this is absolutely amazing. I also have a four year old Epson 500 in a dedicated theater room (this was a $5-6K pj in its time but today is really just a toy). Since I am looking to upgrade the Epson, I have followed most of the latest pj's with particular attention to the JVC's and the new Epsons (my wife can't take single chip dlp's). I must say that I am incredibly impressed by the improvements in the pq of these new projectors. They may or may not match the Pio in absolute pq, but when you factor in the size advantage, dollar for dollar it is no contest. In fact, I still watch any new movie on the old Epson. There is simply no subsitute for the immersive effect of a fp.

I agree with harkness. I have new 50 inch panasonic plasma set up for day viewing then a benq w5000 setup for night the screen comes down over the plasma so I can compare easily.

My dlp anyway which some consider closer to plasma like quality is fairly similar. Once calibrated colors on both are strong and very eye popping. Color is very important to me. Absolute black is better on my plasma, but shadow detail better on the w5000.

The main difference is plasma pannels and screen give you that looking through a window realism look. Like your watching things just out of a window and looks very real.

While my projector gives that cinema feel but its razor sharp, sharper then my plasma, and I also value sharpness detail.

Its tough to say, if plasma could ever get as sharp as my projector I would be very happy, or if a projector or screen company could give you that looking out of a window realism look I would go with one or the other.

As of now, I enjoy them both, dlp projector and plasma seem to be fairly similar otherwise.

Of course Im keeping out the size advantage of a projector.

In my opinion, as far as picture quality is concerned a good plamsa will smoke most or any fornt projector display. I really don't understand why people claim otherwise. I've seen a good half a dozen comparisons now, including my own setup with a 50" plasma underneath 100" projection showing bluray. Three of those occassions was with an RS1 and the plasma performed much better in virtually every aspect of picture quality, especially in contrast and black levels.

In my opinion, as far as picture quality is concerned a good plamsa will smoke most or any fornt projector display. I really don't understand why people claim otherwise. I've seen a good half a dozen comparisons now, including my own setup with a 50" plasma underneath 100" projection showing bluray. Three of those occassions was with an RS1 and the plasma performed much better in virtually every aspect of picture quality, especially in contrast and black levels.

Certainly not too long ago, front projectors were not in the same league as plasmas, save the CRTs.

Projectors have come a long way in the past 2-3 years.

Perhaps a more valid comparison would be a 50" plasma with a 50" projection image. Apples to apples. At smaller display sizes, the newer projectors can throw a surprisingly good image.

Certainly not too long ago, front projectors were not in the same league as plasmas, save the CRTs.

Projectors have come a long way in the past 2-3 years.

Perhaps a more valid comparison would be a 50" plasma with a 50" projection image. Apples to apples. At smaller display sizes, the newer projectors can throw a surprisingly good image.

Tried that. Shrinking the image on the Rs1 made the picture brighter and sharper(if viewing distance remained unchanged) but the Rs1 can't match the black levels or contrast of the plasma, not even close, which was the main criteria for it's better picture imo. When watching Pirates otC3 and Flight of the Pheonix, the Rs1 looked washed out compared to the plasma but certainly the effect was less so when viewed separately. I like front projector alot, it's great fun but I really don't think the picture quality is in the same league as a good direct view display, atleast non I've seen.

I have owned a Marantz VP12S1, S2, S3, S4, VP11S1 and S2. I currently have the new Pioneer Elite Kuro PRO-FPJ1 running in my theater. All have been tweaked to the nines. I have used a flat gain screen (much preferred) and a HP screen (textures the picture) and evaluated picture quality for many hours.

That being said, if I have my preference of where to watch a movie (alone) in my house I will head straight for the master bedroom, my most comfortable chair and watch it on my 50" Elite Kuro plasma panel (also tweaked to the nines). I use this panel as my end all reference for any video material. I also have a 60" Elite Kuro panel and only love it slightly less. All 3 areas have great surround systems and the immersion experience is no less viewing on a 50" display.

If I have a group of people, there is no doubt that movies are viewed in the theater. Size does matter.

Bottom line. A great plasma display is the nuts. A phosphor is the proper way to address an image.

I have owned a Marantz VP12S1, S2, S3, S4, VP11S1 and S2. I currently have the new Pioneer Elite Kuro PRO-FPJ1 running in my theater. All have been tweaked to the nines. I have used a flat gain screen (much preferred) and a HP screen (textures the picture) and evaluated picture quality for many hours.

That being said, if I have my preference of where to watch a movie (alone) in my house I will head straight for the master bedroom, my most comfortable chair and watch it on my 50" Elite Kuro plasma panel (also tweaked to the nines). I use this panel as my end all reference for any video material. I also have a 60" Elite Kuro panel and only love it slightly less. All 3 areas have great surround systems and the immersion experience is no less viewing on a 50" display.
.

Funny, I'm the opposite. I have a plasma but I'm saving all my "serious movie viewing" for my projection set up. I guess having been into flat panels since the early days the thrill has worn off somewhat and projection is the new thing for me.

When you say the immersion experience is the same with the 50" plasma and the projection, do you mean the sound or the picture? I certainly wouldn't agree if you mean the picture immersion is the same (unless you have, perhaps, an exceedingly small projection screen). Flat panels are the new "TVs" and that's what it feels like watching them - "TV", while a big projection set up definitely says "theater."

Still say the black levels on my JVC HD1 are lower than my panny 42PHD8 and it generally presents a better intensity range : it certainly doesn't posterise to anything like the same extent.

Funny, I'm the opposite. I have a plasma but I'm saving all my "serious movie viewing" for my projection set up. I guess having been into flat panels since the early days the thrill has worn off somewhat and projection is the new thing for me.

When you say the immersion experience is the same with the 50" plasma and the projection, do you mean the sound or the picture? I certainly wouldn't agree if you mean the picture immersion is the same (unless you have, perhaps, an exceedingly small projection screen). Flat panels are the new "TVs" and that's what it feels like watching them - "TV", while a big projection set up definitely says "theater."


I completely agree. Important viewing is done on my projector (Blue Ray, Important TV events) and casual viewing is done on the flat panel (gamming, streaming mpg movies, music listening, casual TV). Nothing beats the projector, but then again, the screen is 4 times larger.

I have owned a Marantz VP12S1, S2, S3, S4, VP11S1 and S2. I currently have the new Pioneer Elite Kuro PRO-FPJ1 running in my theater. All have been tweaked to the nines. I have used a flat gain screen (much preferred) and a HP screen (textures the picture) and evaluated picture quality for many hours.

That being said, if I have my preference of where to watch a movie (alone) in my house I will head straight for the master bedroom, my most comfortable chair and watch it on my 50" Elite Kuro plasma panel (also tweaked to the nines). I use this panel as my end all reference for any video material. I also have a 60" Elite Kuro panel and only love it slightly less. All 3 areas have great surround systems and the immersion experience is no less viewing on a 50" display.

If I have a group of people, there is no doubt that movies are viewed in the theater. Size does matter.

Bottom line. A great plasma display is the nuts. A phosphor is the proper way to address an image.


Hmmm.... I wonder why God made the human eye with such a large peripheral vision. If small were good then eyes with macular degeneration, or tunnel vision, would be sufficient. :p

I have used a flat gain screen (much preferred) and a HP screen (textures the picture) and evaluated picture quality for many hours.



Exactly! in reference to matte ("flat gain") vs HP.

Try it sometime. Take something like an RS2, low lamp, properly setup onto a 60" proper screen in a dark room. I'd bet my kids you'd agree it kills the plasma.

But, black levels aren't the whole story anyways and we are all forgetting one very important thing on FP...you CAN get a big screen. Plasmas cannot do that (unless you are made of money).

This is exactly my opinion. I have seen all the best plasma's and the one thing they lack is screen size. I will give up the artificial look of a small 60 inch screen for a FP 100+ inch screen every day. I have a Optoma HD70 and with my grey 106" screen whole setup cost me $1200.00!! Price per square inch and the quality of my image-which at only 720p- is phenomenal. I have to be at least 3 feet away before i see any sde as well. I will never go back to plasma for my main display. Maybe a bedroom tv.:)

Combine convenience, quality at good prices and you have a runaway best selling technology. That is LCD today.


I totally disagree with you here. Every magazine and expert in the field today would disagree with this as well. I dont want to open up an LCD/Plasma debate or continue the one you have started but even with the vast knowledge it seems you enjoy, obviously it doesn't apply to Plasma technology.:)

The person who nailed it best, in my opinion said, plasma gives you the looking out the window look, front PJ gives you the going to the movie theatre look.

So depends on what you prefer.

I've spent tons of time testing out that plasma and it's now a permanent fixture in it's own demo room of my local high-end AV shop.
:D

Which AV shop are you referring to...PM me if you prefer.

Thanks!

-- Bill --

Just another note on this general issue:

Not long after viewing Blu Ray and DVDs on the Mitsubishi 6000 projector I sat again in front of the giant 103" diag Panasonic plasma, which was playing the Blu Ray of planet earth. Two observations:

1. This is a repeat of what I've said before, but a plasma this size simply produces an image that no projector I've seen can produce. That is a consistent depth, solidity and realism to the image - that sense of real objects passing in front of you, or looking through a window at real life. The shots of mountains, which I've seen on plenty of projectors, was just jaw dropping on the plasma for you-are-thereness. Same with the realism and 3D effect of the elephant scenes. Like being at the zoo.

2. The image on this 103" plasma wasn't as sharp as one might expect. When people talk about flat panel advantages over projection one area concerns image clarity/sharpness, where the plasma at least ought to have an obvious advantage in using discrete pixels in a direct-view format. Whereas a projected image often has alignment issues and also must pass through various optic systems that will reduce, in various ways, the precision of the image.

But for whatever reason this plasma, while sharp, doesn't look as sharp as the best projectors I've seen. It's hard to say why. Processing perhaps? But it was receiving a 1080p signal, so that wouldn't seem to be much of a factor (in terms of deinterlacing, pixel mapping etc). What amazed me is that good quality DVDs on the Mits projector actually struck me as noticeably sharper than the Planet Earth Blu Ray on the big plasma! (excepting tiny background details that always suffer in SD). I've been quite amazed at the clarity of a good projector.

That said, the plasma made up for not having the ultimate in sharpness by it's amazingly convincing sense of realism in other areas, as described above.

I had the exact opposite experience the other day. I went over to a home that had a 103" plasma on the wall, and while the size was impressive for a plasma, I found the size still too small, and the image quality did not compare with my Sim2 C3X 1080 on my High Power screen.

Not to mention that my set up, cost less than half the cost of that plasma.

In my opinion, as far as picture quality is concerned a good plamsa will smoke most or any fornt projector display. I really don't understand why people claim otherwise. I've seen a good half a dozen comparisons now, including my own setup with a 50" plasma underneath 100" projection showing bluray. Three of those occassions was with an RS1 and the plasma performed much better in virtually every aspect of picture quality, especially in contrast and black levels.

I have now done the same sorts of comparisons many times and I feel exactly opposite of your opinion. Given a totally dark room which the projector needs and the Plasma doesn't.

Maybe we need to get together for additional comparisons and discuss it some.

I'm trying to figure out what to do with my money. My room can support either technology. I'm coming from CRT blacks and contrast.

Do I grab a Kuro 6020?
Or do I grab a Epson 1080UB?

Each have their pluses and minuses. I'm seriously paralyzed by the decision and do not know what to do.

With the PJ, I'm worried about contrast and black levels not being up to my "standards", coming from a CRT. Also worried about having a giant screen for our only display (kids love their cartoons, wife loves Oprah).

With the Kuro, I'm worried that I'll wish I went big with the PJ for that immersion-feel so important to viewing movies.

The PJ+Screen is about $3500. The Kuro is about $4K.

And then there is the Elite Kuro 151FD calling my name at $5400.

Totally stumped on this one.

I went digital projection coming from the Barco G808 CRT projector, this was my biggest concern also. I went with the JVC RS1, and I could not be happier. No the back level is not quite at the level of CRT(I.E the fade to black), however it does seem to display more shadow detail, and surpases the CRT in every other way.

The Epson is supposed to be good, but I don't think it gets as black as the RS1 or RS2(RS2 is good for even blacker blacks, but you sacrifice brightness). Once you go projection, there is no going back, believe me.

I'm trying to figure out what to do with my money. My room can support either technology. I'm coming from CRT blacks and contrast.

Do I grab a Kuro 6020?
Or do I grab a Epson 1080UB?

Each have their pluses and minuses. I'm seriously paralyzed by the decision and do not know what to do.

With the PJ, I'm worried about contrast and black levels not being up to my "standards", coming from a CRT. Also worried about having a giant screen for our only display (kids love their cartoons, wife loves Oprah).

With the Kuro, I'm worried that I'll wish I went big with the PJ for that immersion-feel so important to viewing movies.

The PJ+Screen is about $3500. The Kuro is about $4K.

And then there is the Elite Kuro 151FD calling my name at $5400.

Totally stumped on this one.
Have you seen an Epson 1080UB yet? There are a few places to demo one in eastern MA. Only 100" diagonal screens, though.

analogBalrag-

Before getting a Kuro 6020, I strongly encourage you to read the review of it in Home Theater mag (should be appearing on web site soon). It is a step DOWN from last years model except for better blacks. You have to get the Elite 151FD or Signature 141FD to eliminate all the deficiences in the 6020.

@hrd -- Unfortunately, there's nowhere near here to demo a PJ (I live in the mountains of NH). I'm worried about the perfomance of LCD PJ's when it comes to contrast and "pop". I'd go DLP but can't seem to find one that will work in my setup -- even the W5000 would yield me only a 92" in my particular setup. I realize this is bigger than a 60" Kuro, but it's still not a Kuro and my other hestitation points on buying a PJ still apply (ambient light, children/wife using it all the time, bulb cost, etc.)

@Robert Whitehead -- I read D-Nice's review of the 6020 and he seemed to think it was the best display EVER released outside of the 151FD and 111FD. He seems to have a good beat on what's out there. I will definitely check out that review you referenced. Does anyone have a link for it?

www.hometheatermag.com

It should be up shortly. For example, impossible to calibrate to 6500K.

Where can I find D-nice's review?

www.hometheatermag.com

It should be up shortly. For example, impossible to calibrate to 6500K.

Where can I find D-nice's review?

Thanks for the link. Here's D-Nice's review:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13816973#post13816973

@hrd -- Unfortunately, there's nowhere near here to demo a PJ (I live in the mountains of NH). I'm worried about the perfomance of LCD PJ's when it comes to contrast and "pop". I'd go DLP but can't seem to find one that will work in my setup -- even the W5000 would yield me only a 92" in my particular setup. I realize this is bigger than a 60" Kuro, but it's still not a Kuro and my other hestitation points on buying a PJ still apply (ambient light, children/wife using it all the time, bulb cost, etc.)

@Robert Whitehead -- I read D-Nice's review of the 6020 and he seemed to think it was the best display EVER released outside of the 151FD and 111FD. He seems to have a good beat on what's out there. I will definitely check out that review you referenced. Does anyone have a link for it?
Nashua is the closest town to you where I've demoed projectors. What about the JVC RS1? It has a 2:1 zoom and so could give you a larger image than the average DLP. Jason mentioned AV Science may have a sale of new A stock RS1s that would probably put it in your price range.

Nashua is the closest town to you where I've demoed projectors. What about the JVC RS1? It has a 2:1 zoom and so could give you a larger image than the average DLP. Jason mentioned AV Science may have a sale of new A stock RS1s that would probably put it in your price range.

Really!? I've always figured the RS1 was out of my range. Wonder how I get a hold of Jason -- not sure who this is. Thanks for the recommendation!

ps. Maybe I'll swing down to Nashua in the coming weeks.

I'm trying to figure out what to do with my money. My room can support either technology. I'm coming from CRT blacks and contrast.

Do I grab a Kuro 6020?
Or do I grab a Epson 1080UB?

Each have their pluses and minuses. I'm seriously paralyzed by the decision and do not know what to do.

With the PJ, I'm worried about contrast and black levels not being up to my "standards", coming from a CRT. Also worried about having a giant screen for our only display (kids love their cartoons, wife loves Oprah).

With the Kuro, I'm worried that I'll wish I went big with the PJ for that immersion-feel so important to viewing movies.

The PJ+Screen is about $3500. The Kuro is about $4K.

And then there is the Elite Kuro 151FD calling my name at $5400.

Totally stumped on this one.

I installed a 60" Kuro for my parents and I have spent a lot of time viewing it. While I agree the image is very good, I still would rather view a movie on my 106" HP screen using my Marantz VP-12S4. The 12S4 with an HP screen has that plasma look.

Really!? I've always figured the RS1 was out of my range. Wonder how I get a hold of Jason -- not sure who this is. Thanks for the recommendation!

ps. Maybe I'll swing down to Nashua in the coming weeks.

Jason of AVS. He mentioned in another thread that he was going to be offering some deals.

Really!? I've always figured the RS1 was out of my range. Wonder how I get a hold of Jason -- not sure who this is. Thanks for the recommendation!

ps. Maybe I'll swing down to Nashua in the coming weeks.
Here's the post where Jason mentions the deal on the RS1s he's working on:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=14473563&postcount=17

I went digital projection coming from the Barco G808 CRT projector, this was my biggest concern also. I went with the JVC RS1, and I could not be happier. No the back level is not quite at the level of CRT(I.E the fade to black), however it does seem to display more shadow detail, and surpases the CRT in every other way.

. Once you go projection, there is no going back, believe me.

That really does sum it up. No matter how good flat panel displays get, there's no getting around the BIG screen. It's the one 'dimension ' the others simply can't touch.

Wonder how I get a hold of Jason -- not sure who this is.

He is a salesman who works for AVS, the owner of this forum!

Edit: Sorry, minor detail: 585-454-1460 x102

I disagree with jason (very much so and I will leave it at that) and the others who imply projectors can exceed the PQ of the best plasmas. Sorry but there is NO WAY projectors beat the PQ of kuro plasmas. The numbers there do not lie.

the current elite kuro line has:

-the best ANSI CR out of any display. If this is used for people to back up DLP over lcos or lcd then how can one not see this advantage in plasma? You can't choose when to put value in something. If DLP at 700:1 is better than a LCD pj at 350:1 then a kuro plasma at 2000+:1 is better than the DLP. It's simple FACT. Double standards aren't cool people.

-the best on/off CR. Again, you can't choose when to put value in this stat and please show me a dlp (since dlp is mainly being used in this thread) that competes with the 2nd gen kuro. Hell, the RS2 won't even match it in on/off and black level and I know this since I have a RS2.

-full calibration for perfectly accurate greyscale/colours. You can't top perfect accuracy.

-the brightness. Again, this is used by many when talking about projectors and again, you can't put value in it for a pj but not for the plasma.

-good sharpness. Some projectors may be a bit sharper though.

-good processing


Quite simply, no projector will surpass the elite kuro's PQ and anyone saying otherwise is biased or lying for whatever unknown reason...and for Jason to say if you brought a pj down to 60" and it'd surpass it is well, IMO very silly unless the plasmas he has seen are crap. How does bringing it down to 60" magically make up for the shortcomings in the specs?

The key thing about projectors is you get great PQ at far larger screen sizes and some of the top PJs DO come close but for flat out PQ they won't pass a kuro. There is no way anyone can deny this without being biased and not being taken seriously. NO WAY. The numbers do not lie.

FWIW I love projectors, would recommend a pj over a plasma to anyone with the right room layout/conditions and again, I own a RS2 which I watch every movie on, watch all my sports on and play all my video games on. I also have a 4280 kuro in another room and as great as the RS2 is and as close as it comes to the kuro, it simply DOES NOT surpass the Kuro in overall PQ and that is the 1st gen Kuro we're talking about. I have another lesser quality plasma in my house and does the RS2 beat it? You bet...but the fact is the best plasma line is not beatable at this time in terms of max PQ and that is the point of this thread- can PJs match or beat the best plasmas in PQ.

Somewhat baffling some have said otherwise but I guess this IS the PJ forum so people will be biased OR they will take the large screen size ability of a pj and make that factor into PQ when IMO they are two totally different things. Oh well...

Sorry but there is NO WAY projectors beat the PQ of kuro plasmas.

Judging by that statement and the rest of your post, Im assuming your experience of high end PJ is somewhat, if not totally, lacking.

-full calibration for perfectly accurate greyscale/colours. You can't top perfect accuracy.

having just installed and calibrated a number of Kuros, I can assure you the above statement is utterly incorrect. They do NOT have perfect accuracy at all. I have seen and own PJs with far more linear greyscale and, vis CMS, total color accuracy.

-good sharpness. Some projectors may be a bit sharper though.

Some are significantly sharper

-good processing

Correct, but some PJs have far better.


Quite simply, no projector will surpass the elite kuro's PQ and anyone saying otherwise is biased or lying for whatever unknown reason...and for Jason to say if you brought a pj down to 60" and it'd surpass it is well, IMO very silly unless the plasmas he has seen are crap. How does bringing it down to 60" magically make up for the shortcomings in the specs?

Quite simply, and evidenced by your own words, you have little or no experience with genuine high end PJs. I bought Kuro panels for their PQ, but did the same with high end FP. It is unwarranted to accuse everyone of lying or bias due to your lack of experience. Simply because you have not seen something does not mean it doesn't exist.


I also have a 4280 kuro in another room and as great as the RS2 is and as close as it comes to the kuro, it simply DOES NOT surpass the Kuro in overall PQ and that is the 1st gen Kuro we're talking about. I have another lesser quality plasma in my house and does the RS2 beat it? You bet...but the fact is the best plasma line is not beatable at this time in terms of max PQ and that is the point of this thread- can PJs match or beat the best plasmas in PQ.

And there we have it. I agree that an RS2 is no match for a Kuro, thats just a simple fact. You are, however, comparing the very best PQ plasma with a budget PJ that isn't even remotely close to the top of the tree in terms of PQ and costs less than 10% of the best imaging PJs. Hardly apples to apples. Not only are there better PQ PJ available but when compared to the largest plasmas they actually provide excellent VFM

In my direct experience the very best PJs do offer better PQ than plasmas. I can name 5 companies I have experience of that offer PJs that achieve this.

I did say in post #43 that if people were honest most PJs arent superior to a good plasma, and most that do achieve this have an price thats not native to this section of AVS. That does not alter the fact that the best PJs are able to deliver better PQ than plasmas, and that was the OPs question.

\
In my direct experience the very best PJs do offer better PQ than plasmas. I can name 5 companies I have experience of that offer PJs that achieve this.

And which of these offer a projector with Kuro/RS2 like On-Off contrast?

And which of these offer a projector with Kuro/RS2 like On-Off contrast?

Add in to that question: which projector comes even within the same solar system of the Kuro's ANSI contrast as well.

I'm in the film business myself and have seen film/hd content on professional Christie/Barco projectors, used in mastering houses (e.g. Deluxe) and they are certainly damned impressive. But I have yet to observe even from those projectors the sheer sense of simultaneous contrast and image solidity/dynamics on a projector as I see on the better Pioneer Kuros.

At this point I prefer projection for several reasons - size/cinematic feel - though.

If you guys believe that a Kuro provides better PQ thats one thing, but it doesn't seem you are basing it on direct experience..........(Oh I see the post above has been subsequently modified to add some "genuine" experience:rolleyes:)

In my own direct experience as an owner of a number of ISF'd Kuros, its simply not the case. I see it every day. If this thread is anything to go by, Im most certainly not alone.

Having said all that, its my personal belief that the future of HT will lie in fixed pixel displays.

As good as the Kuros are, you can't watch one in a dark room or the blacks will look horrendous and it will be too bright overall. But, in a bright room, they are outstanding, blacks will look great and it will be among the best displays available pixel for pixel.

They are not a replacement for a good projector, but for those crazy people who like to watch TV with the lights on, you can't do any better.

If you guys believe that a Kuro provides better PQ thats one thing, but it doesn't seem you are basing it on direct experience.

I have direct experience. See my previous post (and I've been a plasma fan forever, and love the new Kuros as well).

I'm not trying to say a Kuro is "better," just pointing out it does not seem to me to be an open and shut case for the best projectors being providing "better" image quality. Certainly there are quantifiable elements in image reproduction - color accuracy, contrast, resolution etc - which can be compared. And if you play that game, while some projectors may edge out a Kuro in some areas, they will also have a hell of a time competing with some of what a Kuro can do technically (especially simultaneous/ansi). But there is still enough variation in performance, with some strengths going to the best projection and some going to the best plasma - that it would seem that personal preference plays a role in what will be the "best" image to one viewer.

Just like some people are sensitive to the "silk screen effect" on RPTVs and others less so. Some of us are more sensitive to limited viewing cones/hot-spotting/screen artifacts than others. To one person more interested in some areas of projector performance they'll think a projected image obviously looks awesome, whereas someone else can look at the same image on, say, a gray screen and find the screen structure of the screen so overlays the image it ruins any sense of believability.

I'm sensitive to the sense of "solidity" to an image which to me is an important part of image realism. Projected technologies, both Rear and Front projection, always have to my eyes a "projected image" look - light bouncing off a screen rather than solid objects - that distinguishes the sensation of looking at projected images from real-life images.

Plasma gets significantly closer to the sensation of looking at real, solid objects "through a window" than any projection I've seen (again, that includes many top of the line consumer projectors, as well as the best Digital projectors available used at film mastering/deliver facilities).

Projection certainly can get that realistic feel - I find mostly in the mid-tones, people's faces etc - but as you approach the extremes - dark/light - I find the projected-on-a-flat-screen nature of the image becomes more obviously un-real.

Even my 6 year old Panasonic ED plasma beats any projector I've seen in terms of a consistent look of "real life solidity."

I'm far from alone in this perception. Plenty of people have pointed out that they find a great flat panel provides a somehow more convincingly realistic image - (and again, this to me holds true even after seeing the best in projection). However others don't seem to be that sensitive to it and to other eyes projection can seem more realistic.

As it happens, these days I'm not ultimately concerned with pure realism as I
am mostly a movie-watcher and enjoy a cinematic vibe.





Having said all that, its my personal belief that the future of HT will lie in fixed pixel displays.

Yeah, I can see why. I was a flat panel fanatic for years but now I enjoy a great projected image more. As much as I love a good plasma, I'm sort of afraid of that cinematic-film-vibe that might go lost should some direct-view technology make projection extinct.

As good as the Kuros are, you can't watch one in a dark room or the blacks will look horrendous and it will be too bright overall. But, in a bright room, they are outstanding, blacks will look great and it will be among the best displays available pixel for pixel.

Kuros, like other plasmas, have various picture modes as well as individual PQ parameter adjustments (contrast, brightness). It is not hard to find a combination of settings that is appropriate for viewing in a dark room. In fact, because of their extremely high on/off, I'd say Kuros (and even the latest round of Panny's) look quite a bit better in a dark room than most front projectors.

Kuros, like other plasmas, have various picture modes as well as individual PQ parameter adjustments (contrast, brightness). It is not hard to find a combination of settings that is appropriate for viewing in a dark room. In fact, because of their extremely high on/off, I'd say Kuros (and even the latest round of Panny's) look quite a bit better in a dark room than most front projectors.


If you know of settings that work in a dark room, let me know because I have not been happy with any I tried.

That's OK because the plasma is for normal TV watching. Not for critical movie watching (at least in my opinion). I would have reached this conclusion based on immersiveness alone but this issue seals the deal.

Again, no question that the Kuros are exceptional for what they are but they are not a substitute for a large screen.

Lawguy, my Panny looks great in the dark in Cinema mode, with all settings kept at the factory settings for that mode. With 15K:1 on/off contrast and very high ANSI, this display looks fantastic in a dark room. I don't own a KURO, but I've seen them, and given the fact that it has a higher on/off than my Panny (and lower BL) I think I could probably dial in decent dark-viewing settings on one of those too.

I still prefer my projector for watching movies, mostly because of the immersiveness of that big screen.

And which of these offer a projector with Kuro/RS2 like On-Off contrast?

I don't believe the RS2's on/off is in the same league as the Kuro's and it's ANSI CR is a tiny fraction. So, I don't think we should lump the RS2 in with the Kuro when talking about picture quality or contrast.

I don't believe there is any digital projector that comes close to the Kuro's on/off CR or black floor.

I don't believe there is any digital projector that comes close to the Kuro's on/off CR or black floor.


That's not true. In a dark room, an RS1 definitely is blacker than a current generation Kuro. I have seen this side by side. Now, the Kuro is probably an order of magnitude brighter than the RS1.

Having said that, though, my new house has been in the design/build stages for 5 years. Up until recently, I had assumed I would have a large plasma in the theater because, my reasoning went, I would rather have a better picture than a bigger one, especially with the breakthrough represented by the Kuro and I, too, have Kuros all over my new house. However, digital front projection has also experienced dramatic improvements recently. So much so that I am definitely going with front projection in my theater. My new reasoning being that front projection has improved to the point where the slight trade-offs in some aspects of picture quality are now absolutely worth it to get the bigger, more immersive experience offered by digital projection.

My new reasoning being that front projection has improved to the point where the slight trade-offs in some aspects of picture quality are now absolutely worth it to get the bigger, more immersive experience offered by digital projection.

Yep, that was a large part of my reasoning in going FP once I encountered the first consumer projectors that truly blew me away.

Yep, that was a large part of my reasoning in going FP once I encountered the first consumer projectors that truly blew me away.
Indeed, I remember going into Ultimate Electronics grand opening for fun(was out farting around my my parents), didn't know anything about it. Saw the flat panels for the 1st time and was really impressed, the level of detail was outstanding compared to the old tubes.

And then my mom comes out of this black room, and tells me sincerely not to go in there. So I do, and their playing Fellowship of the Ring on a 133in screen via the Sharp Z9000(I believe), and having never encountered a FP set up, my jaw hit the floor, and is still there really lol. I never even gave those flat panels a second thought after seeing it. Truely, nothing makes up for the large screen.

Also having worked at Best Buy for a time, I compared the 52in Samsung LCD to my RS1 in terms of sharpness(both playing Spiderman 3 on Blu Ray), and found them to be equal, even with my RS1 projecting on a 147in screen. Not a direct A-B, but I went back and forth many times, and really did expect the Sammy to be sharper, it just wasn't. I would be curious to see a Kuro, as the Pioneer plasmas we had in the store sucked majorly, fuzzy and lacking in black level compared to most other sets, plasma and LCD alike.

I agree "Snake." :-)

One of the things that really surprised and astounded me, once the consumer 1080p projectors and HD-DVD/Blu Ray came along especially, was seeing BIG projected images that seemed every bit as sharp as the smaller flat panel images (and sometimes even sharper).

And in the big image the image detail really takes on a more immersive dramatic importance (I like the way you can really easily read the nuances in an actor's face on a bigger projection screen, in medium/full and distant shots, whereas they are not so obvious in a much smaller flat screen of equal resolution, simply because it makes the actors much tinier).