Originally Posted by jeahrens
Seating to screen ratio is usually given in height and not width with regards to projection. Normally you see a 2-3x ratio. In my case I'm a little over 2x (just under 10' from a 51" tall screen). In my experience the difference in apparent resolution between the Sony and JVC start to dwindle after 5 or so feet from the screen. But that's not a scientific study by any means. Just an observation. Certainly at a normal seating distance the differences will have diminished.
Essentially yes. With the linker the differences would boil down to what e-shift 5 brings to the table. Based on observations from Cedia I'm expecting a nice incremental improvement, but not a substantial gain. We'll know more as people acquire them.
I'm still not clear on how this linker functions. The dynamic iris is part of the projector hardware, right? How would an external unit processing HDMI signals affect how the projector operates the iris? Wouldn't it need projector specific programming to achieve that (versus being what appears to be a generic HDMI pass-through processor)?
I haven't looked at projector technology in the past 10 years to keep myself from developing Upgrade Itch, but I'm pretty sure 1.5x screen width is usually the rule of thumb... As per something like this:
While a viewing distance of 1.5x the screen width is comfortable for many people, some want to sit closer, say at about 1.3x, or even 1.2x the screen width. Others might feel more comfortable with a screen that takes up a smaller angle of view, and sit back at 1.75x, or even 2.0x the screen width. The farther back you sit, the less work your eyes must do to absorb the entire screen image. That means less eyestrain over a long period of viewing time. On the other hand, the picture will appear smaller and less dramatic. The ideal solution is to find the happy trade-off point where the picture is as large as it can be without inducing eyestrain.
To me, having my head be about 8 feet away (96") from my 45x80 image is big enough to be engrossing while not being fatiguing (I can still see the entire image without strain or moving my head), and 96/80 = 1.2.
If your personal, first person experience is that after about 5 feet the pixel shifted HD to 4K JVC e-shifted resolution is mostly the same as the Sony's native 4K in terms of perceived resolution, that's good to know. Because what I do know is that I sit 8 feet away, that I trust JVC's image and build quality and black levels, and need to spend under $5K (preferably closer to $4K) on my upgrade to keep all my body parts free from spousal threat.
Step 1 - upgrade projector, using my current HD setup as primary input (projector upscaling to 4K); For $100, upgrade my Roku3 to an Ultra for a 4K/UHD video input source to its HDMI2 input, using an optical audio cable to hook up 5.1 sound to current AV receiver.
The question is, what would the RS540 run me, versus a used RS520 or RS600 (or RS500?) with a Linker, and at what discounted price point does it make sense to Go Used? A really nice discount would also help buffer me from any hit this entire eshift technology base would probably take if JVC came out with $6-8K native 4K DLA projectors in 2018.
Step 2 - upgrade my AV receiver to one that passes through HDR and 3D with 4+ HDMI inputs (I will still only have 5.1 speakers, my theater room is just not big enough for more speakers, unless I played with adding very small, ceiling mounted surround speakers for 7.1)
Step 3 - upgrade Blu-Ray player to one that supports 3D and 4K HDR (Oppo or Panasonic, I guess?)
Step 4 (if necessary) - go from my 1.1 gain HCCV gray screen to a white screen
If Step 1 takes me to the brink of my immediate $5K limit, then Steps 2 through 4 can be postponed for at least several months while reaping immediate benefits.