Originally Posted by darinp2
This has probably been mentioned before, but one more thing on the "we don't have 1080p material, so we don't need 1080p projectors" argument I have seen multiple times. All of these digital projectors display progressively. We get 1080i material now. Just using those 2 facts, what resolution is needed in a digital projector to at minimum faithfully reproduce what is in the 1080i signal? Seems pretty obvious to me that no 16x9 resolution below 1920x1080 can do that.
I agree with your statement Darin (I'd only nitpick and point out that most current HD sources do not represent true 1920 x 1080 resolution). However, I think your statement and this thread so far in general, does not represent the position of those that present the correct and intelligent argument that so mystifies the Trygs of the world ;), which is simply that 1080P is not the be all and end all of picture quality. Or to put in another way, it is one of several factors to consider when purchasing.
I posit the following :):
1. As much as we like to flatter ourselves that we are much more informed than the average consumer, hobbyists are every bit as susceptible to being in love with specifications as consumers are. As an example, I could be wrong, but I suspect that the Nikon D-70 is outsold by Canon's comparably priced higher resolution cameras even though my research, and quite a few knowledgeable authorities have shown that the Nikon takes the superior picture. Please note this statement is based on research done almost a year ago - the competitive landscape may have changed since then. I acknowledge of course that the statement that the Nikon is superior is opinion and I could be wrong but it leads to my next point. Which is that a fair number of people that have seen projectors such as the Marantz 3-chip have in fact found the picture to be competitive (with it’s own strengths and weaknesses) to the Sony Qualia but their voices have been all but drowned out because even most hobbyists can’t get past the resolution spec. Even here we are already seeing people who have very good reason to want to purchase the new Sim CX3 being mocked by the “resolution police” ;) because "spending 20K on a PJ that is 1280 x 720 is insane". But I suspect if most hobbyists were forced to do a blind comparison, quite a few of those "resolution police" would suddenly find the issue is not so clear cut.2. If all other factors were equal (contrast, brightness etc.) for a given application, I can't imagine why any intelligent person would argue against 1920 x 1080. The REAL point in this discussion, the way the debate/question should be phrased if we are to engage in a discussion as opposed to Tryg's typically humorous hyperbole is "since all things are NOT equal, and since the majority of source quality still is not 1920 x 1080, and since seating distance and susceptibility to screen door vary tremendously, how important is resolution to the purchase versus other factors such as contrast, brightness, lens quality etc.
And if you phrase the question that way, there are many instances in which a person, because of their own needs and preferences
, might prefer the picture of a projector such as the Sim CX3 because of its superior native contrast withOUT a digital iris, superior ANSI contrast, superior brightness, and superior MTF. Others will just as rightly prefer the 1920 x 1080 JVC Qualia or Ruby or JVC HD2K because of their absolute lack of screen door, silky smooth picture and superior ability to fully render HDTV material. Just as others will prefer their CRT for its silky smooth picture and outstanding on/off contrast and black level, regardless of whether it fully resolves 1920 x 1080.