2.35 Ultra-Wide Demystified—Free Panamorph/SI Webinar - Page 2 - AVS Forum
1  2
Latest Industry News > 2.35 Ultra-Wide Demystified—Free Panamorph/SI Webinar
mtbdudex's Avatar mtbdudex 11:02 AM 05-09-2013
John - I'm sold on "2.35 Ultra-Wide", I've re-named my build thread to match that also!

Ver 1.5 update: Mike R(mtbdudex) 2.35 Ultra-wide 130" DIY Home Theatre/Basement Thread
http://www.avsforum.com/t/989861/ver-1-5-update-mike-r-mtbdudex-2-35-ultra-wide-130-diy-home-theatre-basement-thread

CRGINC's Avatar CRGINC 12:05 PM 05-09-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Baumann View Post

John,

The Webinar was interesting and some of the animations helped me clearly understand some of the principles.

I do have a question that I wanted to ask. What is generally considered the best aspect ratio screen to use with a Panamorph UH480?

I was thinking that a 2.37:1 screen might be the best overall compromise as the overscan would kind of be in the middle of the road so to speak!

Your impressions? confused.gif

Thanks!


...Glenn smile.gif

Glen, no matter which aspect of screen (2.35-2.40) you pick, you will end up with small pillars on the side or small black bars on top. I have a video processor that can crop the picture to exactly fit the screen or you can project the picture into the border area. I have a 2.37 screen but would go for 2.40:1 if I was buying again. My screen is 9 feet wide so this amounts to a decrease in .5" in height. Not worth changing screens unless replacing.

Charles
CRGINC's Avatar CRGINC 12:14 PM 05-09-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

John - I'm sold on "2.35 Ultra-Wide", I've re-named my build thread to match that also!

Ver 1.5 update: Mike R(mtbdudex) 2.35 Ultra-wide 130" DIY Home Theatre/Basement Thread
http://www.avsforum.com/t/989861/ver-1-5-update-mike-r-mtbdudex-2-35-ultra-wide-130-diy-home-theatre-basement-thread

I personally try to stick with industry standards. I define formats as Cinemascope (2.35-2.40), Widescreen (1.85) and HDTV (1.78). Of course there are films shot in 1.33 and 1.66 and other ratios as well.
mtbdudex's Avatar mtbdudex 01:14 PM 05-09-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGINC View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

John - I'm sold on "2.35 Ultra-Wide", I've re-named my build thread to match that also!

Ver 1.5 update: Mike R(mtbdudex) 2.35 Ultra-wide 130" DIY Home Theatre/Basement Thread
http://www.avsforum.com/t/989861/ver-1-5-update-mike-r-mtbdudex-2-35-ultra-wide-130-diy-home-theatre-basement-thread

I personally try to stick with industry standards. I define formats as Cinemascope (2.35-2.40), Widescreen (1.85) and HDTV (1.78). Of course there are films shot in 1.33 and 1.66 and other ratios as well.

Sure - to us "geeks" (fondly) we know the difference between AR's, when I try and explain to people who visit my HT what Cinemascope is and various AR's at times it became long winded, I like the simplicity of "2.35 Ultra-Wide".
VinnyS's Avatar VinnyS 01:30 PM 05-09-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

Sure - to us "geeks" (fondly) we know the difference between AR's, when I try and explain to people who visit my HT what Cinemascope is and various AR's at times it became long winded, I like the simplicity of "2.35 Ultra-Wide".

+1 on that.

What would be funny is instead of having those cheesy "What is Blu-ray" trailers before your movie starts, maybe have "What is Ultra-Wide". Having some of the slides from Panamorph before my movie would explain a lot to the guests in my theater.

Regardless, with or without an explanation, everyone who watches my 140inch Ultra-Wide screen is impressed. There simply something so attractive when watching a cinemascope movie. biggrin.gif
John Schuermann's Avatar John Schuermann 10:33 AM 05-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

Sure - to us "geeks" (fondly) we know the difference between AR's, when I try and explain to people who visit my HT what Cinemascope is and various AR's at times it became long winded, I like the simplicity of "2.35 Ultra-Wide".

That rhymes too smile.gif
John Schuermann's Avatar John Schuermann 10:33 AM 05-10-2013
Kind of. wink.gif
John Schuermann's Avatar John Schuermann 10:38 AM 05-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Baumann View Post

John,

The Webinar was interesting and some of the animations helped me clearly understand some of the principles.

I do have a question that I wanted to ask. What is generally considered the best aspect ratio screen to use with a Panamorph UH480?

I was thinking that a 2.37:1 screen might be the best overall compromise as the overscan would kind of be in the middle of the road so to speak!

Your impressions? confused.gif

Thanks!


...Glenn smile.gif

Hi Glenn!

As I mentioned in my reply to cRockHT above, the correct aspect ratio depends to some degree on throw ratio. Can you tell me what projector, screen size, and throw distance?
John Schuermann's Avatar John Schuermann 10:40 AM 05-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by cRock HT View Post

I was thinking about the cinavista lens to get my foot in the door, but would probaby invest more if there was a better fit as projector technology changes quickly, but a good investment in a lens upfront would last many years.

Understood. Based on your setup, I am guessing 2.35:1 should be just about perfect. I am running this by Panamorph's tech support expert for confirmation.

What projector are you using?
Glenn Baumann's Avatar Glenn Baumann 11:05 AM 05-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

Hi Glenn!

As I mentioned in my reply to cRockHT above, the correct aspect ratio depends to some degree on throw ratio. Can you tell me what projector, screen size, and throw distance?


I will be using a JVC RS46, Panamorph UH480, 120" wide scope screen and the throw will be 15 to 16 feet.


... Glenn smile.gif
GetGray's Avatar GetGray 11:12 AM 05-10-2013
Ultrawide. Kinda like it, too.
cRock HT's Avatar cRock HT 12:08 PM 05-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

Understood. Based on your setup, I am guessing 2.35:1 should be just about perfect. I am running this by Panamorph's tech support expert for confirmation.

What projector are you using?

Thanks John. Benq W7000
John Schuermann's Avatar John Schuermann 03:02 PM 05-12-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by cRock HT View Post

Thanks John. Benq W7000

OK, ran this by Dave in tech support. He says your aspect ratio will be around 2.37:1.

However, he warns that you are at the extreme end of the focal range of the CineVista. Can you move the projector a foot or two closer?
John Schuermann's Avatar John Schuermann 03:10 PM 05-12-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Baumann View Post

I will be using a JVC RS46, Panamorph UH480, 120" wide scope screen and the throw will be 15 to 16 feet.


... Glenn smile.gif

OK, your system is almost the same as mine. I am about 16 ft back from an 11' wide screen. With my setup I have about a 2.37:1 ratio. I have a 2.35:1 screen and I have slight overscan on the sides. You are a little bit further back so your aspect will be a bit narrower. I double checked with Dave this am and he suggested either 2.37:1 or 2.35:1.
John Schuermann's Avatar John Schuermann 02:06 PM 05-13-2013
Speaking of the "UltraWide" designation, Panamorph has posted two new videos that introduce the UltraWide concept. We would love to get your feedback. Please remember these are geared toward the general public:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z72a6D-hfjk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NkqMDUPUJg
Josh Z's Avatar Josh Z 02:50 PM 05-13-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Baumann View Post

John,
I do have a question that I wanted to ask. What is generally considered the best aspect ratio screen to use with a Panamorph UH480?

I was thinking that a 2.37:1 screen might be the best overall compromise as the overscan would kind of be in the middle of the road so to speak!

There's a lot of discussion about this in the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height forum on this site. Much of this decision will come down to personal preference.

A few points to keep in mind:

- Although the theatrical projection standard for "scope" (or "ultra wide") movies is 2.40:1, there is no practical standardization for how those same movies will wind up transferred to home video. Some will be 2.40:1, some will be 2.35:1. This may vary from studio to studio, or even disc to disc from the same studio. It depends on how the specific telecine machine used for the film-to-video transfer was calibrated. It's a total crapshoot what you'll get on any given disc, and the specs on the packaging are no help because they're written by the studio Marketing department.

- The 1.33x stretch that an anamorphic lens adds to your projector's output will give you an aspect ratio of 2.37:1. No movies are (intentionally) transferred for this ratio, so you will have some tiny amount of geometrical distortion. Further, the electronic "vertical stretch" features in projectors and video processors are programmed based on an expected target ratio of 2.35:1, not 2.40:1, so you'll have slightly more distortion on a 2.40:1 screen than a 2.35:1 screen.

- The difference between 2.40:1 and 2.35:1 is so miniscule that it's really not worth fretting over. Nor is the geometrical distortion I've just mentioned likely to be noticeable to your eye in real-world playback.

- No matter which screen ratio you chose, not all "scope" movies will fit it perfectly. A 2.40:1 movie on a 2.35:1 screen will have tiny letterbox bars on the top and bottom, or a 2.35:1 movie on a 2.40:1 screen will have tiny pillarbox bars on the sides. In either case, you can adjust your zoom to let tiny slivers of picture fall off the edges of the screen, so you'll never see the black bars. This will not affect the compositional intent of the photography, and is well within the expected tolerances for variances in theatrical projection.

As I said, it'll really come down to personal preference. I chose a 2.35:1 screen and am very happy with it.
John Schuermann's Avatar John Schuermann 03:04 PM 05-13-2013
Part of this discussion has to do with the fact that any anamorphic lens actually varies the amount of "stretch" based upon throw ratio. As I mentioned previously, an extremely short throw ratio will result in an aspect ratio of greater than 2.40:1 - perhaps 2.45:1 or 2.50:1 - while an extremely long throw ratio will result in an aspect ratio less than 2.35:1. Keep in mind I am talking about the light hitting the screen (as with a test pattern), and that this has not relation on what the aspect ratio of the film happens to be. As long as people stay within our recommended specs, none of this is really an issue.
mtbdudex's Avatar mtbdudex 05:36 PM 05-13-2013
So is the correct name "2.35 ultra-wide" or "2.35:1 ultra-wide"?

Just for std hdtv wide definition, aka 16:9, some people grasp that, while most don't. Then some use 1.78:1..

I personally like the simpler "2.35 ultra-wide", as its normalized you can drop the :1 IMO.
GetGray's Avatar GetGray 06:05 PM 05-13-2013
+1
John Schuermann's Avatar John Schuermann 06:26 PM 05-13-2013
I think we will refer to it as 235 UltraWide in trainings, within the industry, and internally, but leave the numerical off the consumer outreach stuff. As I think I mentioned, I sat in on the CEAs consumer research meetings and the average Jane and Joe really hate numbers in any product / technology description.
TMcG's Avatar TMcG 05:10 AM 05-14-2013
Hi John. I watched both videos a couple of times and here is some quick feedback on the content. Just my opinion, of course, so do what you want with these suggestions.
  • I'd probably make it one video that's a bit more to-the-point than two videos, at least at this point in the purchase decision-making process
  • State the benefits clearly up front to hook the user and then "backfill" with the educational component. 80% larger picture is mentioned, but this area of the video may stand to benefit from a quick bullet-point list graphic of the benefits. Benefits are: Eliminate black bars, 80% bigger pictures, 25% more resolution, 25% more brightness, the only way you get all the performance you paid for in your front projector
  • Stating that you are losing over "half a million pixels" is completely meaningless to most people. However, most people are familiar with 1080 for lines of resolution. It may be easier for people to understand that when you have black bars, you are only watching 810 lines on your 1080 display
  • Perhaps this is a bit of sales puffery, but when the screen expands to Ultrawide, it's an exaggeration of what people can expect, assuming a constant image height setup. At the 1:50 mark in the first video is a much better side-by-side comparison. If the animation functioned much like the splash page on your website I think that is more than sufficient to iterate the differences without the exaggeration.
  • Do you intend to address the difference between a lens system and a projector that simply zooms in a third video? Explaining the differences between zooming and the lens system in layman's terms should also help with the "informed consumer" approach.

John Schuermann's Avatar John Schuermann 09:11 AM 05-14-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post

Hi John. I watched both videos a couple of times and here is some quick feedback on the content. Just my opinion, of course, so do what you want with these suggestions.
  • I'd probably make it one video that's a bit more to-the-point than two videos, at least at this point in the purchase decision-making process
  • State the benefits clearly up front to hook the user and then "backfill" with the educational component. 80% larger picture is mentioned, but this area of the video may stand to benefit from a quick bullet-point list graphic of the benefits. Benefits are: Eliminate black bars, 80% bigger pictures, 25% more resolution, 25% more brightness, the only way you get all the performance you paid for in your front projector
  • Stating that you are losing over "half a million pixels" is completely meaningless to most people. However, most people are familiar with 1080 for lines of resolution. It may be easier for people to understand that when you have black bars, you are only watching 810 lines on your 1080 display
  • Perhaps this is a bit of sales puffery, but when the screen expands to Ultrawide, it's an exaggeration of what people can expect, assuming a constant image height setup. At the 1:50 mark in the first video is a much better side-by-side comparison. If the animation functioned much like the splash page on your website I think that is more than sufficient to iterate the differences without the exaggeration.
  • Do you intend to address the difference between a lens system and a projector that simply zooms in a third video? Explaining the differences between zooming and the lens system in layman's terms should also help with the "informed consumer" approach.

These are all excellent points - thanks for taking the time to give this thoughtful consideration! I will address one by one:

1. The other feedback we got was to keep the videos under three minutes, which in the case of the second video, we already failed frown.gif The problem has been to communicate a fairly complicated message quickly. However, I agree with you that a single video would be more effective overall if we can keep the viewer's interest that long.

2. Good points all - may re-work to accommodate smile.gif

3. Interesting - the other feedback we received was just the opposite - that the 1080P vs. 810P argument was lost on most people. In fact, the original script made a big deal of 1080P vs. 810P, and it was changed to the "over half a million pixels" concept instead. One of the projects I have always wanted to do was a focus group on exactly this kind of thing. I have my own instincts based upon over 25 years trying to explain this stuff to the general public, but sometimes I get over-ridden. That's why I want to do a focus group - to show the world that I was right! wink.gif

4. You are technically correct, as it is an exaggeration in terms of a constant height setup. However, one of our targets is flat panels, and to make the point that flat panels are not capable of the size and impact of projection. I realize that that is not explicit in the video, but we are trying to be a bit impressionistic in terms of the experience. The side by side image serves to make the point in constant height terms (which you pointed out). Again, I will point out that our "enemy" is not 16:9 so much as the flat panel. The main thing we have discovered is that the vast majority of people have no idea that such a thing as UltraWide even exists in ANY form. Their reference is going to be flat panel, not projection. One last point in this regard. The original intent was to make the 16:9 letterboxed image in the center be the same height as the UltraWide image. However, in the compositing stage it became obvious that we could not put the two characters on either side without making them extremely tiny and "cutting off" part of the live elements at the very top (hand gestures, etc).

5. Yes, zoom vs. lens is the topic of an upcoming video smile.gif

I have found over the years that "No Black Letterbox Bars, An 80% Larger Image" combined with the side by side illustration has been the most effective way to promote 235 UltraWide. This resulted in the original Panamorph video on the splash page.

Again, thanks so much for the serious consideration you gave this!
TMcG's Avatar TMcG 05:34 PM 05-14-2013
You're welcome, John. To keep things easy, I'd like to respond to your feedback in order:
1. I agree, being a marketing director myself, 3-4 minutes is the sweet spot for what is ostensibly a commercial pitch. But my impression (feeling) was that the first video was relatively devoid of information and took a long time to set the stage for what was then recapped in the second video. If you stay with the two-video format I would rework the first video (as you alluded to in #2) so there is a bigger "hook" and create the desire to watch the second video.

3. I was basing this comment off all the consumer electronics advertising a typical person would see from Best Buy, Aaron's, Target, etc. All of them list the number of horizontal lines of resolution (and the refresh rate for most), and only a couple of the high-end premium TVs actually listed the total pixel count. Based on your comment that these videos target the general public, that was why I came to my previous comment from that perspective. There is no harm in using both, instead of just one or the other. Something like: "When you show an Ultrawide movie on a traditional HD display, you are losing over 25% of the 1080 lines of resolution to producing those annoying black bars. That's over half a million pixels and it reduces the watchable image to just 810 lines in addition to reducing picture brightness by over 25%."

4. I am surprised to hear that flat panels are one of your targets because, for most people, even the difference between sticking a premium 65" Sony 4k flat panel on the wall at a cost of $7000 vs. the cost of a projector, 2.35:1 screen, anamorphic lens with sled, control system to make easy use and professional installation is significant and two totally different systems. I'd say the #1 target by far would be to reach out to those folks already committed to front projection but buying a 16:9 screen without forethought or knowledge of Ultrawide and need the educational components of this video. Even if Ultrawide flat panels existed today, the difference between the flat panels and the front projection Ultrawide systems from cost, installation and design considerations is still considerate. You are part of a successful company and obviously know how to market your products, but I personally don't see full-blown large-format front projection as part of the conversation for upgrade from a flat panel. I see it as two different customers and systems.

Good luck and I wish you much success with your new videos in helping other home theater enthusiasts "see the light" on Ultrawide.
Josh Z's Avatar Josh Z 11:07 AM 05-15-2013
Personally, I'm not a fan of the graphic that Panamorph uses to represent a movie scene on the screen.



I understand that you don't have the rights to use an image from a real movie, but this particular drawing is problematic because the close-up of the person's face (is that supposed to be a man or a woman, anyway?) is poorly composed to chop off the forehead too close to the eyes. This leads an uninformed viewer to the impression that important information is missing from the top of the image. Where's the rest of his/her head?

Back in the day, the first time my mother-in-law saw a letterboxed movie on my TV, she asked why the black bars covered up so much of the picture. She didn't understand that we were gaining more picture on the sides, not less from the top and bottom. This particular image would just exacerbate that problem, because it looks "wrong" even without the black bars, no matter what size you blow it up to.

A different image that's more of a medium or wide shot would be a lot more effective.

My $.02.
John Schuermann's Avatar John Schuermann 01:06 PM 05-15-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post

You're welcome, John. To keep things easy, I'd like to respond to your feedback in order:
1. I agree, being a marketing director myself, 3-4 minutes is the sweet spot for what is ostensibly a commercial pitch. But my impression (feeling) was that the first video was relatively devoid of information and took a long time to set the stage for what was then recapped in the second video. If you stay with the two-video format I would rework the first video (as you alluded to in #2) so there is a bigger "hook" and create the desire to watch the second video.

3. I was basing this comment off all the consumer electronics advertising a typical person would see from Best Buy, Aaron's, Target, etc. All of them list the number of horizontal lines of resolution (and the refresh rate for most), and only a couple of the high-end premium TVs actually listed the total pixel count. Based on your comment that these videos target the general public, that was why I came to my previous comment from that perspective. There is no harm in using both, instead of just one or the other. Something like: "When you show an Ultrawide movie on a traditional HD display, you are losing over 25% of the 1080 lines of resolution to producing those annoying black bars. That's over half a million pixels and it reduces the watchable image to just 810 lines in addition to reducing picture brightness by over 25%."

4. I am surprised to hear that flat panels are one of your targets because, for most people, even the difference between sticking a premium 65" Sony 4k flat panel on the wall at a cost of $7000 vs. the cost of a projector, 2.35:1 screen, anamorphic lens with sled, control system to make easy use and professional installation is significant and two totally different systems. I'd say the #1 target by far would be to reach out to those folks already committed to front projection but buying a 16:9 screen without forethought or knowledge of Ultrawide and need the educational components of this video. Even if Ultrawide flat panels existed today, the difference between the flat panels and the front projection Ultrawide systems from cost, installation and design considerations is still considerate. You are part of a successful company and obviously know how to market your products, but I personally don't see full-blown large-format front projection as part of the conversation for upgrade from a flat panel. I see it as two different customers and systems.

Good luck and I wish you much success with your new videos in helping other home theater enthusiasts "see the light" on Ultrawide.

Some quick responses to responses to responses:

1. Understood, and somewhat agree.

3. If it was not clear from my initial response, I actually agree with you but was overridden. I will use your comments as ammo for any revisions / new videos. smile.gif

4. With the CineVista lens, it is actually possible to do a complete anamorphic system for under $3K - lens, projector, and screen. That is an incredible value proposition when compared to even an 80" Sharp LCD. Not only is the picture bigger - and arguably better - it is a much more cinematic experience than one would get from the aforementioned Sharp.

The consumer projection industry is acutely aware of the fact that flat panels are getting larger and cheaper, and the projector manufacturers are already feeling the effects. Since we see the projector manufacturers as partners, our desire is to give projection a true differentiated experience from flat panel. After all, the only difference between an 80" 16:9 flat panel and a 100" 16:9 projection system - fundamentally - is the size of the image. As flat panels get larger and cheaper, that advantage goes away. This is where the whole UltraWide concept comes in - an experience you CANNOT get with flat panel (especially now since VIZIO and Philips have exited this market).

Most people have NO IDEA that the UltraWide experience is even available to them. It is my own personal experience (after running Integrity Home Theater for 6 years) that people are more than open to switching to projection if they see it set up right! Integrity Home Theater sold projection systems ONLY. No flat panels. Our advertising (usually radio) was simple - "before you drop thousands of dollars on the latest flat panel at the big box store, you owe it to yourself to come check out the projection systems we offer at Integrity Home Theater." This was tremendously successful. So many people had their minds changed just by seeing a projection system set up right, and at a reasonable price. I had the same exact experience selling Panamorph / UltraWide. It was simply a matter of presenting it to them. Once people saw it, they invariably wanted it. And 99% of them had no idea it even existed. That's what we are trying to change.
John Schuermann's Avatar John Schuermann 01:22 PM 05-15-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Personally, I'm not a fan of the graphic that Panamorph uses to represent a movie scene on the screen.



I understand that you don't have the rights to use an image from a real movie, but this particular drawing is problematic because the close-up of the person's face (is that supposed to be a man or a woman, anyway?) is poorly composed to chop off the forehead too close to the eyes. This leads an uninformed viewer to the impression that important information is missing from the top of the image. Where's the rest of his/her head?

Back in the day, the first time my mother-in-law saw a letterboxed movie on my TV, she asked why the black bars covered up so much of the picture. She didn't understand that we were gaining more picture on the sides, not less from the top and bottom. This particular image would just exacerbate that problem, because it looks "wrong" even without the black bars, no matter what size you blow it up to.

A different image that's more of a medium or wide shot would be a lot more effective.

My $.02.

Thanks for the input, Josh, though I am a bit surprised to hear it. One of the things Panamorph has consistently gotten praise for is that particular image, and the side by side comparison with the same image letterboxed that's in the video and all the Panamorph literature. Most people just assume it is from "The Fifth Element" and identify with it on that level.

I do understand, though, from your personal experience with your mother-in-law, why you would feel differently. I have heard similar complaints about letterboxing from my days selling laserdisc players.

One of the things I did have a chance to test market was various images and how well the average person responded to them in terms of explaining anamorphic / UltraWide. The thing that became obvious was that human faces in closeup were far and away the most preferred out of the group of images we tested. Landscapes were the worst. The larger the human face, the more imposing and impressive it became after applying the anamorphic process.

And it sure looks like a woman to me wink.gif
Josh Z's Avatar Josh Z 11:15 AM 05-16-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

One of the things I did have a chance to test market was various images and how well the average person responded to them in terms of explaining anamorphic / UltraWide. The thing that became obvious was that human faces in closeup were far and away the most preferred out of the group of images we tested. Landscapes were the worst. The larger the human face, the more imposing and impressive it became after applying the anamorphic process.

As they taught us in film school back in the day, in a proper close-up, the person's eyes should be approximately 2/3 up from the bottom of the image. The viewer's gaze will always be drawn to the eyes first, and you don't want the center of attention to be all the way up at the top edge of the frame. That's an unnatural and uncomfortable way to either watch a movie or look at a photo.

If this drawing could be slid down so that we see less of the chest/arms and a little more of the forehead, it would look much better balanced.
Josh Z's Avatar Josh Z 11:23 AM 05-16-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

After all, the only difference between an 80" 16:9 flat panel and a 100" 16:9 projection system - fundamentally - is the size of the image. As flat panels get larger and cheaper, that advantage goes away.

Until flexibile OLED screens that can be rolled up into a tube are ready for the commercial market, it will be much easier to get a projector through your door into the theater room without having to knock down a wall than it would be to get a 100" flat panel in there. smile.gif
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar RLBURNSIDE 01:21 PM 05-16-2013
I can't wait for OLED ! But only in 120+ inch 2.35 : 1 rollable sizes. With auto-stereoscopic 3D in 144hz in 4k. Please? smile.gif
TMcG's Avatar TMcG 11:08 AM 05-18-2013
You forgot to say under $1000 as well.....
1  2

Up
Mobile  Desktop