Originally Posted by HiFiFun
In a front projector forum I'd expect 90% of replies to be biased toward front projectors.
In an LCD forum I'd expect about 70% for LCD
For the general public I'd expect about 95% for flat panels.
There's probably a reason for that. The question you must ask (yourself) is how many people with FPs would go back to an LCD for movies? Well I've seen one pondering it in this thread, but that's the only one I've heard of.
My calibrated 70" Sharp has better contrast than my DC3 Mitsubishi 4000. All this years <$10K 3D 0.65 DLP projectors use the old DC2. Only the $30K 0.95" DC4 projectors (like the SIM2) win. The Sharps LCD do over 1000+ lines of motion resolution.
On the pure numbers, I probably agree, a good flat panel can probably "out benchmark" a similarly priced front projection setup.
But you know what? I couldn't care less. I've got a Samsung B6000 in my living room, and even though it has better (apparent) contrast than my Planar 8150 (Runco LS5), I would never pick the LCD over the Planar to watch a movie. Yeah, an 80" LCD is quite a bit bigger, but it's till well less than half the area of a 120" screen. You can argue specs and benchmarks all day long, but at the end of the day, there simply is no substitute for size, and I pick my Planar over my LCD every day.
How much is it for a dedicated Home Theater room?
How much does it cost to mount an 80" panel on the wall?
What does that matter? The OP is talking a ~$4000 budget for display, room doesn't factor into that (or it factors into both), it's not a distinction between one and the other unless you change the question/argument to be "Should you get a TV or a home theater", which is an entirely different question.
Watch out when objectivity takes a back seat to brand loyalty. Just because a few pump-up doesn't mean everyone is in agreement.
No brand loyalty here, just my observation that there's just no substitute for size. Current front projectors throw a fantastic image for relatively little money. If you've got a room/environment to drive them to their best, then there's simply no substitute for front projection when it comes to overall "enjoyment" and immersion for a home theater.
Originally Posted by HiFiFun
First Runco is not exactly known for value. Yet paradoxically, the Sharp 3000 is priced the same as the Runco LS-3, yet Home Theater mag reports the 3000 has chromatic fringing, the sign of a cheap lens. Last years Sharp 17000 is now reduced to $2K. Both replacement bulbs are over $500.
I have no idea what Sharp is thinking with their pricing lately, and I find it unfortunate that Planar decided to roll their home theater line (LS3/LS5/etc) under the Runco brand because it basically removed a couple of the best projectors out there from the consideration of many just due to people thinking Runco is overpriced (even though the LSx prices have not changed since they were sold as Planars).
A Runco dealer told me a story of comparing their previous projector, to the newer one having two pieces. They saw and empty space where the circuitry used to be, but now moved into the second enclosure.
They do that for installation flexibility, to put all the inputs close to your source devices so you only have to run one long cable from your equipment to the projector rather than many, and even form reasonable sellers like Monoprice and BJC, long HDMI cables are still somewhat expensive. Sim2 does the same thing, there's nothing wrong with it, though it's less necessary with the proliferation of AVRs and SSPs with HDMI switching.
So they dropped the brand. The brand is strictly limited, available from Magnolia Design Centers who have hungry commissioned sales people who i have no desire to deal with. When I did go there one time it took two people 15 minutes to turn on the $12K JVC projector through their custom designed and highly-automated system.
I don't even waste my time going anywhere near anything associated with Best Buy. The local B&Ms match their prices (they have to) and have much better service to boot.
The picture quality was outstanding except for the softness caused by the scaling/lens to 2.35 format.
So what is the point of using superb lens when the image ends up softened anyways?
If that's true, they had a crappy lens installed, or installed poorly.
Of course none of that has anything to do with the projector vs TV discussion.