<<The sharpness differences between the H79 and AE900 are especially noticeable on text. The AE900 gives the text a more smeared look like CRTs to my eyes. And on a computer desktop it is especially noticeable with the desktop looking less sharp on the AE900. But on video this can be a good thing also since it smooths some things out. But with less sharpness.
Darin (and anyone else who cares to respond!),
Would you mind elaborating a little more? I will want to use the 900 (or z4, etc.) to display the PC desktop; I already have a wireless keyboard, for example. Mostly, I will want to do a little gaming (some of the "Need for Speed" titles), and occasional surfing (AVS at 110", baby!).
Will the smoothscreen technology make such applications an unrealistic hope? Or, is text viewable (down to, say, 10 pts.) at 1X screen width (3 1/2 yards or so?), but just not as "sharp" relative to other LCD PJs?
TJN in Stereophile Guide to HT/Ultimate AV has often said that he believes that digital PJs "seem sharper" than, say, 9" CRT PJs, because of the pixel grid itself; i.e. our perception is swayed by the outlines of the fill spaces, esp. on horizontal and vertical lines (and, of course, text, etc.). Do you agree with this? And, if so, do you find it a "desirable" factor (e.g. it's not a bug, it's a feature!)?
Lastly, does the smoothscreen on the 900 merely "magnify" the center of the individual pixels to "stretch them in 2D," and therefore "fill in" the fill spaces/grid--yet NOT "step on" the adjacent pixels?
I guess one can't always have everything--e.g. no SDE AND good text legibility for PC apps. I'm trying to get a feel for whether the 900 will work for me, or if maybe the Z4 will be a better match considering all I want to do with the PJ. BTW: movies are, far and away, the primary reason for having a front projector in the first place, so, weigh that primary usage, if you don't mind responding. I am intrigued by the smoothscreen technology, and understand from some CEDIA posters (don't remember whom) that Panasonic "improved" the tech in the 900...e.g. perhaps responding to some consumer criticism about sharpness issues. I hope so. Yet, Jimmy and others have reported that that the 900 may look slightly softer than the 700. I'm slightly confused. (Or, maybe I should just chalk up such differences as a "wash," and just try to determine whether the 900 will work for me, oblivious to the 700
I will not be able to demo my purchase (in WV), before buying, so, I appreciate everyone's kind sharing of experiences!