Need PJ Recommendations For a 14' Wide Screen - AVS Forum
Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP > Need PJ Recommendations For a 14' Wide Screen
J_P_A's Avatar J_P_A 08:10 PM 08-14-2012
I am getting ready to start my dedicated theater build, and I would like some suggestions on PJ's that will work well in a 18'x30' room. I would like to go with a 14' wide 2.35 , AT screen, and I realize that narrows down my choices quite a bit. However, I'm not too hung up on meeting the 12 F.L. recommendation if it's not something I'm going to miss. Obviously I'd love to have a really bright picture, but PJ's get brighter every year, so I'd rather build my room to accommodate the largest screen possible, and the wait on the PJ technology to catch up rather than remodeling my room in a couple years.

To summarize, I'm looking for a PJ that will light a 14' screen reasonably well, and offers a memory zoom for switching from 16:9 to 2.35:1 material. I'm not looking to buy anytime soon, but I'd like to get an idea of what my options are to help layout where my cables and mounting points need to go.

Dionyz's Avatar Dionyz 10:58 PM 08-14-2012
You should post this in the over $3,000 forum, as you may find more options.
Under $3,000 I am not aware of any options that will have reasonable lumens.
J_P_A's Avatar J_P_A 08:33 AM 08-15-2012
I was hoping to find something under $3K. I was planning to spend the majority of my budget on the room, and then just plan to upgrade the PJ down the road.

What about something like the Panny AE-7000U? I'm not interested in 3D, but it looks like this PJ puts out over 1,600 measured lumens in Dynamic mode and 1300 in Normal. Obviously not calibrated, but there are going to be tradeoffs. I figured for a 84 s.f. screen I'd need about 1000 lumens to make the 12 f.l. mark, and I've read others on the board are happy with as little as 8 f.l.
MississippiMan's Avatar MississippiMan 08:33 AM 08-17-2012
Oh this is easy. cool.gif

Panasonic PT-AR100U 2800 lumen 17' throw = 15 fls with a 1.0 gain screen

The Panny is priced at less than 1/2 your desired budget, making it an ideal choice to upgrade from later without undue remorse.

The best "no upgrade needed" choice? Epson 6010. 2500 lumens 17' - 4" Throw = 26 fls with a 1.0 gain screen
That PJ is borderline a budget-buster, but in all other respects worthy of consideration because of it's terrific Contrast, excellent Lens, both that work to optimize it's lumen output.
BTW, I've used the 6010 on a 185" light Gray screen w/1.3 gain and it never even looked anything less than stupendous.

With the 6010, you can easily remain happy and sated until the 4K machines become reasonably priced.

But....your only dreaming about a Pj suitable for your situation coming with "lens memory". The Panny 7000 is woefully inadequate..................unless you spend mega-bucks on a very large (...and very expensive...) high gain Mfg 2.40:1 screen

That is unless you hunker over to DIY Screens, and I'll show you how to make yourself a 14'er DIY Screen with 1.3 to 1.4 gain. If you do that, you'd wind up with 15 fls to 16 fls (...a fl level that is ideal in most peoples' opinions...) w/a 17' Throw. As you already know

Choosing the Panny 7000 , the AR100u, or the 6010 all are made even more desirable if you save outrageously on the humongous screen your aspiring to put up. Your "building" a Theater anyway...why not make a Screen you can be "Suspender poppin' proud" of, eh?
Mr.G's Avatar Mr.G 09:58 AM 08-17-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_P_A View Post

I am getting ready to start my dedicated theater build, and I would like some suggestions on PJ's that will work well in a 18'x30' room. I would like to go with a 14' wide 2.35 , AT screen, and I realize that narrows down my choices quite a bit. However, I'm not too hung up on meeting the 12 F.L. recommendation if it's not something I'm going to miss. Obviously I'd love to have a really bright picture, but PJ's get brighter every year, so I'd rather build my room to accommodate the largest screen possible, and the wait on the PJ technology to catch up rather than remodeling my room in a couple years.
To summarize, I'm looking for a PJ that will light a 14' screen reasonably well, and offers a memory zoom for switching from 16:9 to 2.35:1 material. I'm not looking to buy anytime soon, but I'd like to get an idea of what my options are to help layout where my cables and mounting points need to go.

Let's be clear here. Do you really mean 14 feet wide or 14 feet on a diagonal? There's a difference between these that impacts the throw range and image brightness.

14 feet wide = 82.8 square feet of screen area
14 feet diagonal = 71.0 square feet of screen area

This is for a 2.35 aspect ratio screen.

-
J_P_A's Avatar J_P_A 12:59 PM 08-18-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.G View Post

Let's be clear here. Do you really mean 14 feet wide or 14 feet on a diagonal? There's a difference between these that impacts the throw range and image brightness.
14 feet wide = 82.8 square feet of screen area
14 feet diagonal = 71.0 square feet of screen area
This is for a 2.35 aspect ratio screen.
-

I'm planning for a 14' wide 2.35 screen. I believe that would make around 72" tall and 183" diagonal.
J_P_A's Avatar J_P_A 01:09 PM 08-18-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

Oh this is easy. cool.gif
Panasonic PT-AR100U 2800 lumen 17' throw = 15 fls with a 1.0 gain screen
The Panny is priced at less than 1/2 your desired budget, making it an ideal choice to upgrade from later without undue remorse.
The best "no upgrade needed" choice? Epson 6010. 2500 lumens 17' - 4" Throw = 26 fls with a 1.0 gain screen
That PJ is borderline a budget-buster, but in all other respects worthy of consideration because of it's terrific Contrast, excellent Lens, both that work to optimize it's lumen output.
BTW, I've used the 6010 on a 185" light Gray screen w/1.3 gain and it never even looked anything less than stupendous.
With the 6010, you can easily remain happy and sated until the 4K machines become reasonably priced.
But....your only dreaming about a Pj suitable for your situation coming with "lens memory". The Panny 7000 is woefully inadequate..................unless you spend mega-bucks on a very large (...and very expensive...) high gain Mfg 2.40:1 screen
That is unless you hunker over to DIY Screens, and I'll show you how to make yourself a 14'er DIY Screen with 1.3 to 1.4 gain. If you do that, you'd wind up with 15 fls to 16 fls (...a fl level that is ideal in most peoples' opinions...) w/a 17' Throw. As you already know
Choosing the Panny 7000 , the AR100u, or the 6010 all are made even more desirable if you save outrageously on the humongous screen your aspiring to put up. Your "building" a Theater anyway...why not make a Screen you can be "Suspender poppin' proud" of, eh?

Thanks for all the information. Lots to think about there for sure.

I believe I've seen some threads with your DIY screens, and everyone has certainly been happy. IIRC, they are a painted screen, correct? I was planning for an AT screen so that I can get my speakers, and most importantly my center channel, behind the screen. Are there DIY options that I'm not aware of for high gain DIY screens?

Also, I'm sure I'm missing something with regard to the Panny AE-7000, but the projector central review I linked to even mentioned a 200" screen in a light controlled room. Why would a high gain screen be necessary if this PJ can put out over 1600 lumens? I've really just begun searching for projectors, and I'm a long way away from actually buying one, but I'd like to get an idea of what my options are.
coderguy's Avatar coderguy 02:12 PM 08-18-2012
The Epson 5010 or 6010 does not do 2500 lumens in a useable scenario, it does 1500 lumens in dynamic mode at mid-throw but goes down from there depending where you mount it. The Epson 5010 in any mode over 1500-2000 lumens will look poor.

One thing that is often overlooked in these discussions is the lamp cost when you go so big (if you are a heavy PJ user). If you watch your projector a lot of hours per year, say more than 300-500, and you go with this big of a screen even on the Panny ar-100u (which is the brightest of the aforementioned), then you will have to budget for extra bulbs over time compared to using a smaller screen because even in LAMP HIGH it will eventually get too dim quicker than it would using a smaller screen (you'll have less room).

As far as what the projector central guy said about the Panny ae7000u, well he must have been smoking something when he said that, as there is no way the Panasonic ae7000 is bright enough for a 200" screen. That is a joke.

The Epson 5010 is better, but still VERY borderline (I personally would not do this big of a screen with the Epson at 1. 0 gain), not realistic in any color accurate mode (even Dynamic mode isn't bright enough after a bit of lamp wear). At 1,500 lumens it will be bright enough at first in LAMP HIGH, but lamps dim over time. Even on a new lamp with that screen size in LAMP HIGH, the Epson in Dynamic Mode will only do 10 fL to 14 fL depending on your mounting position and lamp variances.

Keep in mind that at 500 hours you will generally lose anywhere from 20% to 40% of the bulb's brightness (and it can vary wildly, you can lose even more than that sometimes).
Between 500-1000 hours of use, the bulb doesn't generally age nearly as fast as the first 500 hours, so at 1000 hours, you'll generally be anywhere between say maybe 25% loss to 50%+ loss (larger range).

I would generally aim for getting at least 18 to 20 lumens in something like a dynamic mode to start with, because that leaves you with about 14 fL to 16 fL at 500 hours, and about at 12 fL to 14 fL at 1000 hours.
J_P_A's Avatar J_P_A 02:33 PM 08-18-2012
Out of curiosity, what's the largest screen you would recommend for a PJ in the $3,000 range (give or take) if I'm considering AT screens?
coderguy's Avatar coderguy 05:18 PM 08-18-2012
There isn't really a specific size to recommend because it varies, as it depends on a lot of factors (how often you use the PJ, which PJ you buy, willingness to buy lamps more often, sensitivity to color accuracy). Also you do realize that you won't be able to watch 16:9 content on most of these projectors without manually re-configuring the zoom and lens shift?

These specific projectors we are discussing here (without a VP anyhow or HTPC) do not allow 16:9 to 2.35 switching via lens memory or Y-positioning.

For brightness, the Panny ar100u would probably be the minimum (or 5010 if you are willing to buy lamps more often), but I'd personally give up the AT screen idea at that size if you will be putting any considerable amount of hours on the projector per year (if you only use it on weekends or something, then maybe).

At the minimum, just do a DIY screen with a lot of gain 1.8+, and then pair it with the Epson 5010.
The reason for a DIY screen is because screens this large are so expensive. I would also mount any projector you get very near closest throw to maximize the brightness in this setup.

However, if you are really set on a 200" 1.0 gain AT screen, then I guess overall it depends also if you are sensitive to the DLP rainbow effect or not, there is the Optoma th1060p (only 3x color wheel) and the Benq sp910 (same). They are both bright enough, but they also have RBE (http://www.projectorcentral.com/benq_sh910_optoma_th1060p_projector_review.htm).

Otherwise 150" 2.35 sounds more reasonable with these other projectors like the 5010 or Panny ar100u, maybe 200" 2.35 on the ar100u.
J_P_A's Avatar J_P_A 09:33 PM 08-18-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

There isn't really a specific size to recommend because it varies, as it depends on a lot of factors (how often you use the PJ, which PJ you buy, willingness to buy lamps more often, sensitivity to color accuracy). Also you do realize that you won't be able to watch 16:9 content on most of these projectors without manually re-configuring the zoom and lens shift?

That's why I was interested in the AE-7000U. We do plan to watch some sports in the theater.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

These specific projectors we are discussing here (without a VP anyhow or HTPC) do not allow 16:9 to 2.35 switching via lens memory or Y-positioning.

How would a processor or HTPC allow switching via lens memory?
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

For brightness, the Panny ar100u would probably be the minimum (or 5010 if you are willing to buy lamps more often), but I'd personally give up the AT screen idea at that size if you will be putting any considerable amount of hours on the projector per year (if you only use it on weekends or something, then maybe).
At the minimum, just do a DIY screen with a lot of gain 1.8+, and then pair it with the Epson 5010.

Would the center channel generally be mounted above the screen with a non-AT screen? I suppose this really sounds like a chicken or the egg situation. If I go with an AT screen, then I would lean towards a larger screen. I can put the center in the center, and I put the L and R wherever is appropriate. If I use a non-AT screen, then I would lean towards a smaller screen to get the speakers out of the corners of the room, but that negates the need for the high gain screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

The reason for a DIY screen is because screens this large are so expensive. I would also mount any projector you get very near closest throw to maximize the brightness in this setup.

Do people typically buy a PJ before they build their room in order to locate the mounting points and conduit for the wiring? I want to limit the number of holes in my soundproofing, and I suspect that PJ's will only get brighter, so I thought waiting to buy would only give me more options.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

However, if you are really set on a 200" 1.0 gain AT screen, then I guess overall it depends also if you are sensitive to the DLP rainbow effect or not, there is the Optoma th1060p (only 3x color wheel) and the Benq sp910 (same). They are both bright enough, but they also have RBE (http://www.projectorcentral.com/benq_sh910_optoma_th1060p_projector_review.htm).

As far as I know, I've never seen the RBE on a DLP set. But I haven't really been looking for it, and I don't know anyone with a DLP TV or PJ. I'm sure it would drive me crazy if I ever noticed it, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Otherwise 150" 2.35 sounds more reasonable with these other projectors like the 5010 or Panny ar100u, maybe 200" 2.35 on the ar100u.

Are you using width or diagonal measurements there? I realize this isn't the point of your comment, but I'm looking at 168" wide (186" diagonal). I was only pointing out that the PC review specifically mentioned a 200" screen as an example.

Thanks again for all the feedback. Seems like there are too many variables to be able to make a decision!
J_P_A's Avatar J_P_A 08:51 AM 08-19-2012
I made a trip down to my basement, and stared at my future screen wall for a bit. 14' is big (I like it, but still big), and I started wondering what would be the largest screen I could get away with where a PJ with a zoom memory is available at a reasonable cost. Would 12' wide get me any additional options?
carp's Avatar carp 10:41 AM 08-19-2012
My screen is 12' 3" wide or 158 diagonal (2:35:1) and is plenty bright using a cheapie Epson 8350, so yeah 12 feet wide is totally do-able for 2:35:1 IMO. However, I do have to manually zoom back and forth between 16:9 and 2:35:1 and know that's not what you want. BTW, in 16:9 my screen is only 124" but still looks huge from my 14' back seating position.

My screen is a very light gray paint that looks white if you didn't know any better but it's just enough gray to help out with contrast. You can check out pics of my setup below.
indio22's Avatar indio22 11:21 AM 08-19-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post

My screen is 12' 3" wide or 158 diagonal (2:35:1) and is plenty bright using a cheapie Epson 8350, so yeah 12 feet wide is totally do-able for 2:35:1 IMO. However, I do have to manually zoom back and forth between 16:9 and 2:35:1 and know that's not what you want. BTW, in 16:9 my screen is only 124" but still looks huge from my 14' back seating position.
My screen is a very light gray paint that looks white if you didn't know any better but it's just enough gray to help out with contrast. You can check out pics of my setup below.

My compliments on your home theater setup - nice clean lines and looks comfortable. All I have so far is a little LED projector mounted with some wood to the unfinished ceiling of my basement, along with a 100" diagonal pull down screen. Looking at your home theater is the kick in the pants I need to finish planning and start hanging drywall!
carp's Avatar carp 02:42 PM 08-19-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by indio22 View Post

My compliments on your home theater setup - nice clean lines and looks comfortable. All I have so far is a little LED projector mounted with some wood to the unfinished ceiling of my basement, along with a 100" diagonal pull down screen. Looking at your home theater is the kick in the pants I need to finish planning and start hanging drywall!

Thanks man, I got my kick in the pants last fall (spending way too much time on this forum) and I'm so glad I did. I should have gone with a front projector years ago!! Good luck, and if you have the money now then yeah, get on it!! smile.gif
316's Avatar 316 06:46 PM 11-05-2013
"I was hoping to find something under $3K. I was planning to spend the majority of my budget on the room, and then just plan to upgrade the PJ down the road."

My advice, if its 14ft wide you want don't settle for a smaller screen..you have the room. You WILL regret not going big. I had a 12' wide 16:9 HP screen runing on a CRT projector and aside from the HP and CRT the screen size was an experience that was worth the trade-offs.

BTW, I ordered my 160" WIDE 2.35 AT curved screen, now I am looking for the projector or "projectors" to make it work. I'm leaning towards a stacked pair of JVC RS46's but Im still researching. My budget is around 6k but I plan on buying one at a time to ease the chunk$$ if you know what I mean.

I wanted a curved screen and need it AT, so that's what I'm buying...its not for everyone but its not impossible to make it work either.

Anyway's you might want to check out the Optoma EH500. It boasts 4700 ANSI lumens AND 10,000:1 CR. for a very reasonable price....plus its 1080P and 3D.
Now those are the claims.....and it is DLP ....but there is a relatively inexpensive option to consider. No memory that I am aware of but then neither are the Epsons and this is almost half the price.

Throw your first big chunk of cash and get the curved screen if you want to take your big screen exp to another level. I went with a seymour so my foundation is set...to me it makes no sense in building your system around a projector that will be obsolete in a year..start with your screen... settle on your size, AR, etc because...you will be upgrading your PJ...don't kid yourself into thinking that you won't. Mike at AVS can hook you up on a screen or a PJ.

Now from a purist perspective, a 14" wide screen does not necessarily mean a sacrifice in PQ...it just means you have to work harder at finding the right PJ.... and fork out extra $$$$ and obviously have the room size available which you do.

You can also look at the Optoma HD25-LV which is more of a HT PJ vs a mulimedia and its even less $$than the EH500....keep in mind I am not suggesting these are the best projectors but they can hold you over until you can get or want to get in the 3k plus price range.
AV_Integrated's Avatar AV_Integrated 09:27 AM 11-06-2013
You have a number of issues which must be considered.

1. Do you want to do 2.35 because it makes sense to the room, or are you stuck on it because it sounds really f'n cool and you have bought into the hype?

2. You have immediately limited yourself to a specific range of projectors by making any 2.35 decisions. Period.

3. Any acoustically transparent screen will have a certain amount of light loss as it passes though the screen. So, a Seymour AV screen will look awesome, but you will have light loss there.

4. The screen you want to use is larger than the norm. Sub $3,000 (even most sub $10,000) projectors are designed to fit in the norm. About 92" to 133" would be 'the norm'. Going larger will require some special considerations. These days we do have the new breed of family room friendly projectors which do a very good job on larger screens for not a lot of cash - but not one of them can do 2.35/1.78 screens properly that I know of.

What would I do?

If you are dead serious on all of this, then the only, and I mean the ONLY proper way to do 2.35 is by using an anamorphic lens. It will open up your projector options as you can use a limited zoom range projector from almost any manufacturer. You may need an external processor for this if the projector doesn't have the digital resizing capabilities you would need, but there are many more options out there, and some bright, cheap, projectors that can be had.

By example, I use the BenQ W1070 on a 161" diagonal screen and it has no problems at that size whatsoever (1.3 gain screen). This screen has a height which is larger than what a 14' wide 2.35 screen would have (79" vs. 71") so with an anamorphic lens, it should do a suitable job filling the screen with a good image, and the price affords you some cash towards a decent anamorphic lens which you should be using anyway.
J_P_A's Avatar J_P_A 10:36 AM 11-06-2013
Thanks for the feedback! Since the opening post, there have been a few developments. I got great deal on a C-stock A-lens and automated slide. As mentioned that really opens up my possibilities. With the A-lens in hand, I've been looking at the Epson 6020 since it has an onboard video processor, and it's relatively bright. I found one site that measured somewhere in the neighborhood of 1700 lumens on high lamp mode with a calibration intended to get a good compromise between color accuracy and light output. This sounds reasonable to me since I'm not particularly concerned with spot-on calibration. That should put me in the neighborhood of what I need to light up a screen this size, even after accounting for lamp wear and throw distance.

At this point I'm trying to zero in on a final dimension. I'm thinking somewhere in the range of 160"-166" wide. It's just going to depend on what ends up being comfortable. My wife and I both like to sit close at the theater (less than 1x screen width), and screen to eyes in our theater will end up at around 13' (156"). I can always mask it down smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV_Integrated View Post

.......
1. Do you want to do 2.35 because it makes sense to the room, or are you stuck on it because it sounds really f'n cool and you have bought into the hype?
..............

I'm not sure I follow you on this one. My wife and I really enjoy scope movies. The big action blockbusters are really the only reason we go to the theater, anymore. That said, this seemed to make sense for our room. Part of the reason I picked a 14' wide screen to begin with is 6' seemed like an excellent height for a 16:9 screen as well. That way I'd only need horizontal masking to go between the two ARs. Also, my room is just over 18', so a 14' wide screen falls just under 80% of the room width, which DE recommends as a limit to how wide a screen should be.

Am I missing something there?
AV_Integrated's Avatar AV_Integrated 02:30 PM 11-06-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_P_A View Post

I'm not sure I follow you on this one. My wife and I really enjoy scope movies. The big action blockbusters are really the only reason we go to the theater, anymore. That said, this seemed to make sense for our room. Part of the reason I picked a 14' wide screen to begin with is 6' seemed like an excellent height for a 16:9 screen as well. That way I'd only need horizontal masking to go between the two ARs. Also, my room is just over 18', so a 14' wide screen falls just under 80% of the room width, which DE recommends as a limit to how wide a screen should be.
No, you follow me, and you did give it thought. There is a lot of 2.35 marketing going on right now and a lot of people want to go 2.35, but the room is completely inappropriate for it and their budget is as well.

I would base all the measurements you do on having a 16:9 screen of the proper height, and using an anamorphic lens with a 10% cut in light output due to the lens.

It's always bugged me that the Epson projectors don't include the proper image processing on their 5020 series since other projectors include it out of the box.
d james's Avatar d james 02:32 PM 11-06-2013
I think you can have your 14ft screen with that projector, Ive gone 20ft wide with a little thousand lumen projector on a very old bulb. Its not the brightest picture, certainly far from the ideal 16 lumens, but it sure is fun. If you have an anamorphic rig, then even better as you can retain more lumens instead of having to zoom out and make the picture bigger for 2.35. I haven't found anyone who comes to my theater that likes the more color accurate modes more than the brighter inaccurate ones. My projectors are not professionally calibrated, so maybe that makes the difference, but everyone seems to enjoy the pop of brightness over color accuracy. I think most people just don't know how a picture should really look and so don't pay attention to it. Just like at the big box stores that sell tvs and crank the backlight up and put it on some store demo torch mode. I prefer using my bright mode on my Epson projector for most viewing except for those special movies that need the better color.

The thing about bigger is the pixels become more spread along with the dimmer picture, so it won't look as crisp as something much smaller, and as many will point out, you can just sit closer to give a bigger feel. However, I say go for it. Don't get a screen until you can display it on the wall and see how you like it first. Epson does claim up to 300 inches with that projector, however it is far from ideal and much to dim for 3d, but you could do it on a new lamp. Just keep in mind as coderguy stated, the lamp will need to be changed rather quickly-around 1500 hours. Mine seems to hit its half life around 2000 and its just so dim at that point, that I have to get a new one.

If you haven't decided on projectors yet, there is a new non home theater pj optoma eh501 that produces 5000 lumens for a street price of 1700 and has 3d to boot. Its brighter than what you would need, but would give you plenty of wiggle room as the lamp ages. Of course the contrast ratio is nothing compared to the epsons, but you're not going to find anything that bright in that price range with anything with a high contrast ratio. I think there are trade offs extremely high brightness or high contrast with lower lumens. Not sure how important high contrast is to you, its something to consider. As soon as I can get my hands on one of these pjs, I will post my review

I would also build my screen size around what will work best for both ratios. If you can mask them off easier with that size, then why not try it first, just shoot it on the drywall.
d james's Avatar d james 02:38 PM 11-06-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV_Integrated View Post

No, you follow me, and you did give it thought. There is a lot of 2.35 marketing going on right now and a lot of people want to go 2.35, but the room is completely inappropriate for it and their budget is as well.

I would base all the measurements you do on having a 16:9 screen of the proper height, and using an anamorphic lens with a 10% cut in light output due to the lens.

It's always bugged me that the Epson projectors don't include the proper image processing on their 5020 series since other projectors include it out of the box.
What really gets me is why manufactures don't have 2.35-2.40 ratio built into a projector along with 1.78. The home theater market is so small, why not cater to those who buy these projectors. I would imagine scope movies make up at lest 50% of what out there, probably more, so why they don't build panels that conform to this, just doesn't make sense. Unless its some difficult process or something, seems like it would persuade more people to buy projectors since nobody likes to look at black bars
AV_Integrated's Avatar AV_Integrated 02:45 PM 11-06-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by d james View Post

What really gets me is why manufactures don't have 2.35-2.40 ratio built into a projector along with 1.78. The home theater market is so small, why not cater to those who buy these projectors. I would imagine scope movies make up at lest 50% of what out there, probably more, so why they don't build panels that conform to this, just doesn't make sense. Unless its some difficult process or something, seems like it would persuade more people to buy projectors since nobody likes to look at black bars
I will only say - Good question. I've said that the first pony to the show with an affordable 2.35 projector will really have something of an advantage. I could see TI really getting some good press with DLP if they would release a 2.35 native chip and BenQ/Optoma/InFocus embraced it with some of their projectors as an option. It would really force Epson to play catch up with LCD, and I've got no idea if JVC/Sony would respond with their LCoS offerings, but it would certainly be a product that I would recommend.
316's Avatar 316 08:13 PM 11-06-2013
An A lens is also something I am considering..... no harm in exploring all options and keep them all open....great info guys!!!smile.gif


Btw, I have a mitsubishi 6800 that has the 2.35 ar "hidden" feature what are your thoughts on that?
Tags: Panasonic Pt Ae7000u 1080p Full Hd Projector , Panasonic Pt Ar100u Lcd Projector Pt Ar100u , Epson Powerlite Pro Cinema 6010 Projector , Epson Powerlite Home Cinema 8350 , Optoma Eh500 Hd 1080p 4700 Ansi Lumens Full 3d Multimedia Projector
Up
Mobile  Desktop