best DLP contrast projector - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 88 Old 06-17-2013, 09:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,486
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 368 Post(s)
Liked: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

I'm with you on this. I think I was talking to some friends about it recently saying that with Sony almost inevitably releasing a lower cost 4K projector this CEDIA I would (if I was JVC) look at doing my lineup as:

Entry level 4K e-shift projector that accepts 4K (despite only being faux 4K), this would be the first year with e-shift tech in the entry level model

The 2 mid projectors being true 4K designs (today's X55/X75) with the X75 having ISF/THX cert.

High end model is true 4K with e-shift for quasi 8K performance. This would set it apart from the Sony offerings. With JVC already demonstrating this tech on their pro stuff it shouldn't be that hard and would justify the rather enormous difference in price between their highest end PJ and the next one down.

that sounds alright, except I think they'd lose a lot of business in the entry market. no matter how you look at it, a 1080p projector without 4k of any kind will be cheaper, and there are still a lot of customers that would be looking for the best 2D picture for their current sources(which will most likely be 1080p and below for the next half a decade at least).

I can tell you when I saw the main difference between the x35/rs46 and x55/rs48 was the inclusion of 4k(before I even realized it was 'fake') it made my decision very obvious. if there was an improvement in contrast, or black levels, it would have been tough not to spend the extra money. but 4k is not something i'm concerned about as probably only about 10% of my viewing material is even 1080p.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 88 Old 06-17-2013, 09:26 PM
Member
 
SauceXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

For it to trickle down, the upper models have to improve. Since there has not been any new development with DLP, there is no place for them to go. The really high end uses the DC4. I don't see DC4 moving to the mid lines, because there would be nothing separating them from the high end.

Besides the implementation of the chip in the PJ, lens, components etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

Agree. I can't tell you how disappointed I was when I heard that TI as a whole wasn't interested in new DLP chips for the home several years ago, and here we are years later with the same chips floating around. And honestly, I just don't see anything changing. Every year people chime in hoping that we'll see more from the DLP camp only to walk away disappointed. That isn't to say that with the existing chips better DLP projectors couldn't be made, only that drastic improvements are just not in the cards.

Same chips and apparently some, like BenQ using a DC2 in the W7000, are bargain shopping.
SauceXX is online now  
post #63 of 88 Old 06-17-2013, 09:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,486
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 368 Post(s)
Liked: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

I've read that it's some of the best non-DLP 3D out there. Unless you watch an absurd amount of 3D it will suffice for most people. It's going to be brighter in 3D mode than most other 3D capable projectors. Also, if you have $15000 to drop on a projector, I think that you could easily spend another $900 on a BenQ W1070 to get a better 3D only experience. I hope no one is thinking that JVCs new 4K panels will somehow be magically better with 3D content. 3D is going to be superior on a DLP based system for a LONG time to come. There are some serious advancements that need to be made before LCD and LCOS can compete on the same level at 3D.

I've never been concerned at all with 3D, so i'm pretty new to this, but wondering what it is that makes DLP better for 3D? I guess where i'm confused is I don't understand why one panel technology could be great for 2D but terrible for 3D? what is the thing needed for good DLP that LCD/LCOS can't seem to get right?

the only two 3D devices I've tried are my f8500 plasma and the jvc x35. keep in mind i'm legally blind in my left eye, so actual 3D effects can't be judged, but I found watching the x35 to be far less distracting and it didn't seem like I was giving up as much PQ compared to the plasma. I personally would never choose to watch anything in 3D though, when you don't actually get any 3D effect it's just sacrificing PQ for nothing... mad.gif

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #64 of 88 Old 06-17-2013, 09:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 3,886
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 186 Post(s)
Liked: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

I've never been concerned at all with 3D, so i'm pretty new to this, but wondering what it is that makes DLP better for 3D? I guess where i'm confused is I don't understand why one panel technology could be great for 2D but terrible for 3D? what is the thing needed for good DLP that LCD/LCOS can't seem to get right?

the only two 3D devices I've tried are my f8500 plasma and the jvc x35. keep in mind i'm legally blind in my left eye, so actual 3D effects can't be judged, but I found watching the x35 to be far less distracting and it didn't seem like I was giving up as much PQ compared to the plasma. I personally would never choose to watch anything in 3D though, when you don't actually get any 3D effect it's just sacrificing PQ for nothing... mad.gif

A LOT of it has to do with how fast, on a native level, DLP DMDs can refresh. Their response times are more than a 1000 times faster than what current LCD and LCOS technologies offer.
Seegs108 is online now  
post #65 of 88 Old 06-17-2013, 09:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 269
take a look at this video:

Sony HW50 3D mode

Then this one:

BenQ W7000 3D mode

The DLP panels can refresh much faster which completely eliminates crosstalk and flicker.
zombie10k is online now  
post #66 of 88 Old 06-17-2013, 10:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Johnson View Post

Hence I would expect that excellent lenses would be needed to fully resolve 2160p/4K. Of course viewers would need excellent eyesight to fully resolve 2160p/4K images from "normal" viewing distances too!

It depends on what you mean by fully.

On my lowly RS10, the gaps between pixels, which are roughly10% the width of a pixel, are clearly delineated.

I have no doubt that pixels 1/4 the size (if not 1/8) would be clear as well, which corresponds 7680x4320 resolution.

Noah
noah katz is online now  
post #67 of 88 Old 06-17-2013, 10:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 3,886
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 186 Post(s)
Liked: 166
There is a reason the suggested seating distance is closer with 4K. It's so that people with 20/20 vision can see the content to it's fullest, which is the same reason why the recommended seating distance for 1080p is 1.5 screen heights.
Seegs108 is online now  
post #68 of 88 Old 06-17-2013, 11:43 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
sanderdvd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Netherlands, Europe
Posts: 2,183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

take a look at this video:

Sony HW50 3D mode

Then this one:

BenQ W7000 3D mode

The DLP panels can refresh much faster which completely eliminates crosstalk and flicker.
but why do some people then still go for a passive 3D solution with the Omega setup? In fact, Motorman45 (Omega filters engineer) even suggest the use of two W7000s
sanderdvd is offline  
post #69 of 88 Old 06-18-2013, 02:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 3,886
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 186 Post(s)
Liked: 166
I'm sure the biggest reason is cost. There are a lot of single chip DLPs under $2500 but not many LCOS machines. Another factor has to do with convergence. It's a lot easier to line up 2 pictures as opposed to 6 like you'd have with a set of LCOS (or LCD) projectors.
Seegs108 is online now  
post #70 of 88 Old 06-18-2013, 02:59 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
sanderdvd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Netherlands, Europe
Posts: 2,183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 24
But motorman45 suggests that one can have an ultimate passive 3D system with the use of two DLP projectors, 1 geobox G-501 and 1 Omega Optical set. Total costs are max 5K and brilliant 3D pq.
sanderdvd is offline  
post #71 of 88 Old 06-18-2013, 04:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Johnson View Post

By way of comparison, many of are familiar with SLR camera lenses. A 1080p/2K projector chip is roughly comparable to about a 6 megapixel sensor. A 2160p/4K projector chip is roughly comparable to about a 24 megapixel sensor. I believe that most decent lenses can easily resolve 6MP, but it likely takes very good lenses to fully resolve 24MP.

I'm curious what you mean by this, I mean, a 1080p machine is only about 2 million pixels, while a 4k machine is only 8 million. It sounds like you're multiplying by the number of panels (which most DLPs only have one), but that's irrelevant since the panels are aligned before leaving the projector.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #72 of 88 Old 06-18-2013, 09:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
R Johnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 1,673
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

I'm curious what you mean by this, I mean, a 1080p machine is only about 2 million pixels, while a 4k machine is only 8 million. It sounds like you're multiplying by the number of panels (which most DLPs only have one), but that's irrelevant since the panels are aligned before leaving the projector.

That's not what I was thinking of. I was just not doing the math correctly last night. Thanks for your post!

A DSLR with 4K (4096) pixels across and a (traditional 35mm film) aspect ratio of 1.5 would have 2730 pixels high. That's 11.18 million - say a 12MP camera. The 1080p/2K would be roughly equivalent to a 3MP camera, neglecting Bayer sensor issues, etc. So the resolution requirement is less than I suggested yesterday.

BTW, a large diameter lens is usually needed for brightness, not for resolution / sharpness.
R Johnson is offline  
post #73 of 88 Old 06-18-2013, 09:30 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Johnson View Post

That's not what I was thinking of. I was just not doing the math correctly last night. Thanks for your post!

A DSLR with 4K (4096) pixels across and a (traditional 35mm film) aspect ratio of 1.5 would have 2730 pixels high. That's 11.18 million - say a 12MP camera. The 1080p/2K would be roughly equivalent to a 3MP camera, neglecting Bayer sensor issues, etc. So the resolution requirement is less than I suggested yesterday.

Ah, you were thinking aspect ratio differences, gotcha.
Quote:
BTW, a large diameter lens is usually needed for brightness, not for resolution / sharpness.

I was combining two issues, I was thinking of the shift to 0.65" DMDs allowing smaller/cheaper lenses, but that was regarding lens shift, you need a big lens for a big chip if you want lens shift.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #74 of 88 Old 06-18-2013, 10:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,998
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)
Liked: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

I've never been concerned at all with 3D, so i'm pretty new to this, but wondering what it is that makes DLP better for 3D? I guess where i'm confused is I don't understand why one panel technology could be great for 2D but terrible for 3D? what is the thing needed for good DLP that LCD/LCOS can't seem to get right?

the only two 3D devices I've tried are my f8500 plasma and the jvc x35. keep in mind i'm legally blind in my left eye, so actual 3D effects can't be judged, but I found watching the x35 to be far less distracting and it didn't seem like I was giving up as much PQ compared to the plasma. I personally would never choose to watch anything in 3D though, when you don't actually get any 3D effect it's just sacrificing PQ for nothing... mad.gif

Currently, DLP is the only display technology that's totally free of crosstalk in 3D - where image from one eye bleeds into the other eye, resulting in "ghost"-like double images around objects.

As beautiful as JVC's D-ILA projectors are in 2D, they're notorious for terrible crosstalk in 3D, which actually grows progressively worse as the lamp ages. I consider 3D unwatchable on my JVC.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #75 of 88 Old 06-18-2013, 01:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,486
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 368 Post(s)
Liked: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

A LOT of it has to do with how fast, on a native level, DLP DMDs can refresh. Their response times are more than a 1000 times faster than what current LCD and LCOS technologies offer.

ok, thanks.

what do commercial theatres tend to use? not that I want to say commercial theatres represent the pinnacle of video technology, haha. just curious. I've only tried about 30mins of 3D on the JVC and to me it looked very close to a 'dim' version of the 2D picture. again, I'm legally blind in my left eye, so that's actually a compliment. I've watched one movie on the plasma in 3D and found the crosstalk(i'm assuming that's what it was) very distracting.

no idea about flicker, but i'm guessing that leads to eye fatigue? after watching the full movie in 3D my eyes were kinda sore.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #76 of 88 Old 06-18-2013, 05:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanderdvd View Post

but why do some people then still go for a passive 3D solution with the Omega setup? In fact, Motorman45 (Omega filters engineer) even suggest the use of two W7000s

High lumen output + cheap glasses..?

You should see how good the 3D is on the Sharp 30K projector, dead center on my 142" 2.8HP screen. It's a perfect match for my RS55.

Black level / contrast is comparable to the Sony HW30 if you recall what that looks like. Not JVC great, but respectable for an inexpensive DLP and black levels in 3D looks much better than the W7000. This is one of my favorite 3D projectors i've seen in a while.
zombie10k is online now  
post #77 of 88 Old 06-19-2013, 08:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,998
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)
Liked: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

what do commercial theatres tend to use? not that I want to say commercial theatres represent the pinnacle of video technology, haha. just curious.

Most commercial movies theaters are DLP, though Sony has been agressively pushing its LCoS.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #78 of 88 Old 06-25-2013, 07:20 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
sanderdvd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Netherlands, Europe
Posts: 2,183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 24
I cannot get 2x XV-Z20000 for my passive dual 3D setup because it is not available anymore. How is the native contrast/black level on the HC7800?

And the Infocus SP8604 or SP8600HD3D?
sanderdvd is offline  
post #79 of 88 Old 06-25-2013, 07:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Elix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dungeon, Pillar of Eyes
Posts: 1,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 23
2x XV-Z20000 would be awesome, I might imagine. If you can't get two of these why not 2x Z30000? They have lens shift = easy placement for passive setup. And the best contrast in class.
Elix is offline  
post #80 of 88 Old 06-25-2013, 07:59 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
sanderdvd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Netherlands, Europe
Posts: 2,183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elix View Post

2x XV-Z20000 would be awesome, I might imagine. If you can't get two of these why not 2x Z30000? They have lens shift = easy placement for passive setup. And the best contrast in class.
Z30000 is not available in Europe
sanderdvd is offline  
post #81 of 88 Old 06-25-2013, 10:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Elix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dungeon, Pillar of Eyes
Posts: 1,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanderdvd View Post

Z30000 is not available in Europe
That didn't stop me. Buy it from USA.
Elix is offline  
post #82 of 88 Old 06-25-2013, 11:08 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

There is a reason the suggested seating distance is closer with 4K. It's so that people with 20/20 vision can see the content to it's fullest, which is the same reason why the recommended seating distance for 1080p is 1.5 screen heights.

Isn't the recommendation 3 times the screen height for 1.78 1080p and 1.5 times the screen width?

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is online now  
post #83 of 88 Old 06-25-2013, 11:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 3,886
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 186 Post(s)
Liked: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Isn't the recommendation 3 times the screen height for 1.78 1080p and 1.5 times the screen width?

Yeah, I wasn't thinking. That's what I meant.
Seegs108 is online now  
post #84 of 88 Old 06-25-2013, 03:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,486
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 368 Post(s)
Liked: 688
I still think that should be the recommended CLOSEST seating position.

I mean resolution has NOTHING to do with how comfortable you will be sitting there. higher resolution allows you to sit closer without seeing pixel structure, but that doesn't mean you should. I still think it's confusing, and i'm sure there are others out there like me that find the 'recommended' distance for 1080p already pretty darn close. I don't think i'll move any closer if/when upgrading to 4k

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #85 of 88 Old 06-25-2013, 03:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 3,886
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 186 Post(s)
Liked: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

I still think that should be the recommended CLOSEST seating position.

I mean resolution has NOTHING to do with how comfortable you will be sitting there. higher resolution allows you to sit closer without seeing pixel structure, but that doesn't mean you should. I still think it's confusing, and i'm sure there are others out there like me that find the 'recommended' distance for 1080p already pretty darn close. I don't think i'll move any closer if/when upgrading to 4k

The reason we use the 1.5SW seating distance for 1080p has to do with how well our eyes can see. For someone with 20/20 vision you'll be able to see full 1080p detail from that distance. Anything farther back and your eyes simply can't see the same amount of detail. If you have better than 20/20 vision then you can sit farther and still see 1080p detail and the opposite if your vision is worse.

If you simply don't care about seeing all the detail you can definitely sit farther back. The picture will look sharper when you do this and you'll probably be a bit more comfortable.
Seegs108 is online now  
post #86 of 88 Old 06-25-2013, 05:38 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

I still think that [1.5 screen widths] should be the recommended CLOSEST seating position.

Actually, 1.5 screen widths is at the far end of recommended seating distances, Erik Garci made a great diagram that summarizes recommended seating distances:


SMPTE recommends a viewing distance of 2-4 picture heights (0.84 - 1.67 screen widths), with a recommended distance of about 3 picture heights (1.25x width), Fox is about the same. 1.5 widths is at the far end of recommended seating distances

Obviously one should sit wherever they feel comfortable, but to say 1.5x width should be the closest recommended distance doesn't jive with industry recommendations.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #87 of 88 Old 06-25-2013, 09:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,486
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 368 Post(s)
Liked: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

The reason we use the 1.5SW seating distance for 1080p has to do with how well our eyes can see. For someone with 20/20 vision you'll be able to see full 1080p detail from that distance. Anything farther back and your eyes simply can't see the same amount of detail. If you have better than 20/20 vision then you can sit farther and still see 1080p detail and the opposite if your vision is worse.

If you simply don't care about seeing all the detail you can definitely sit farther back. The picture will look sharper when you do this and you'll probably be a bit more comfortable.

but, what i'm saying is at the exact point you can see 'all the detail' is theoretically like 1mm away from the point you can see pixel structure.

I think it would be a more appropriate system to list the closest distance you can sit without being able to make out pixel structure if you have 20/20 vision. then it's user preference if you want to sit that close, or a few more feet back.

I get what you're saying, but I think it's the wrong way to look at it. i'm not worried about trying to see actor's pores, i'm worried about making sure i'm not able to see pixels. and I imagine with 4k the limiting factor will be my field of vision. I mean if movies are made so that hardly anything happens around the perimeter of the picture then maybe I won't mind having the image take up 130* field of view, but when they cram in important content from edge to edge, that's too much for me. It tiring having my eyes dart back from left to right all the time. as 'realistic' as that might be.

I still think the goal is the window effect. make it look like i'm looking out a clean window. and when I look out my window I definitely can't see 'all the detail'.

for what it's worth, i'm only making this point because I was 'duped' with my first screen. it was too big, and it was near the low end of the 'recommended' size. i'm much more comfortable watching a screen farther back than the recommended distance. and I'm sure i'm not the only one. that's why I think it's more appropriate to list that distance as the closest recommended, and suggest users sit anywhere behind that distance they prefer. i'm sure most ppl (especially projector people) are going to aim for the max size anyway, but at least the rest of us won't feel like we're 'wrong'tongue.gif

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #88 of 88 Old 06-25-2013, 09:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,486
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 368 Post(s)
Liked: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Actually, 1.5 screen widths is at the far end of recommended seating distances, Erik Garci made a great diagram that summarizes recommended seating distances:


SMPTE recommends a viewing distance of 2-4 picture heights (0.84 - 1.67 screen widths), with a recommended distance of about 3 picture heights (1.25x width), Fox is about the same. 1.5 widths is at the far end of recommended seating distances

Obviously one should sit wherever they feel comfortable, but to say 1.5x width should be the closest recommended distance doesn't jive with industry recommendations.

for what it's worth, I never wanted to say what the closest distance was. you're kind of putting words into my mouth there. whether that's 1.5 widths, or less I have no idea. I was simply saying that's the number i'd want to know. what's the closest I CAN sit without being able to see pixel structure. then I can make sure my viewing position is behind that, and then I can adjust to whatever is comfortable if it still feels too close.

I just think it's misleading going the other way. when I got my first screen I was trying to figure out how to fit a large enough screen to match my viewing distance. and it ended up being quite uncomfortable. my front row quickly became guest seating...haha

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Sharp Xv Z30000 Dlp , Marantz Vp 11s2 Dlp Projector , Sharp Vision Xvz 20000 Hd Dlp Front Projector
Gear in this thread - Z30000 by PriceGrabber.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off