Screen size vs Picture Quality

So I am currently looking at a new screen. My current screen is 92 inches electric, my old screen was 106. I am noticing many on the forum are using much bigger screens.

When I moved from 92 to 106, I didnt notice any loss of size, mind you the 106 was mounted on the wall, and the 92 is on the ceiling and is 12 inches closer to my seating then my old wall screen since the drop down screen has to clear a plasma below it.

Tonight I zoomed my projector out to exactly 106 on the wall. And to be honest I still dont get it.

It seems once I hit 92 inches, I was very satisfied and felt immersed.

Sure the image was bigger, but I didnt really feel more immersed in the picture. Furthermore picture quality is highly important to me. From my seating artifacts showed up easier, it was less sharp, and of course not as bright.

Im just wondering before I decide if i am missing something? I really dont get the fascination with the bigger the better. Unless I was moving to a 120 inch screen then maybe I would notice a difference, but then I would also have to move further back from the screen.

I really feel increasing the size is a matter of diminishing returns once you hit a certain size. My seating ranges from 10-14 away from the screen.

Again is their something im missing, it seems nobody else on the forum shares my view on this.

I dont know if dalite makes custom sizes for the designer contour electrol or how much it costs, but a 96 inch would probably be exactly perfect.

Good post.

Just so I am clear I had a 106, went to a 92, and didnt not miss the 106 at all. Again though the 106 was wall mounted, while the 92 is ceiling mounted, and is also 12 feet closer to my seating, because it has to clear a plasma below it.

Now that im looking for another screen I just dont miss the 106 at all. I think Picture quality to me will always be top priority before size up to a certain point. I was debating going with a 60 pioneer kuro and forgetting projectors altogether, but I couldnt do it, 60 was just way to small.

I have a benq w5000 currently, which is a fairly bright 1080p projector. I have the iris almost fully open and am using a high gain screen.

I brought some freinds over to see if im missing something, and they agreed in theory bigger always sounds better. But they also said the image was alot less sharp, and did not look as good blown up to 106. They thought 92 was big enough and looked better pq wise.

This is also dlp so its sharp.I was using zodiac and kill bill to test. But from 12 feet it lost alot of sharpness in my eyes. It felt bigger but again not more special or more immersed in the picture.

I actually felt positioning plays a much larger role in the above. Again my 92 screen actually felt a bit bigger, it is slightly above eye level coming from the ceiling and is closer, having it slightly above eye level also seemed to add a bigger feel to it. I just feel for me anyway 92 inches is a point where their is diminishing returns going any bigger.

Again i didnt really mean to start a debate, just wanted to get some opinions, its not often i buy new screens.

Im also a little curious, how much screen size on 16:9 screens is lost for 2:35:1 movies, I measured my 92 diagonal at 80 diagonal for cinema scope movies, a loss of 12 inches is not to bad at all.

I really disagree about projectors being about size not quality.

My projector while I like a large picture also needs to look great. Picture quality is still highly important. I am completely taken out of a movie, no matter how big it is, if the picture is showing artifacts, soft picture, dim. Also a 92 inch screen is not a big tv to me, i dont think any tv's on the market come in that size. I think your maybe refering to panasonic 104 inch plasma, i dont even know if those are for sale through regular distribution channels, those are specifically available through special channels and I think I remember reading they are targeted toward television production companies and media rooms, not the home market. I dont know of any tv's available for the home market at 92 inches, I think 82 inches might be the biggest I seen by mitsubishi available to the home market, thats still 10 inches smaller then my screen diagonal. The panasonic is also just a prototype. I believe philips and sharp also had 100 plus inch screens, again not available to the home market they stated for a number of years yet. So large tv's like you describe are out of the question, no tv's readily available come in that size.

I tested the 106 vs 92 again, and the 106 just had noitceably less depth and punch then the 106, again I guess its a matter of priority, is size more important then quality.

I only watch blue-ray and have a 1080p projector, and still going bigger shows more flaws in many blue-ray transfers, and to be honest their is not many good transfers. Look at the teir ranking. Of course this all depends on your seating distance. But i still see many people with 120 inch screens sitting 11 feet away.

In response to george, I agree with your post but this maybe in line with the "what is happening to this portion of the forum" post in the high end projector section.

I remember when i joined this forum picture quality was of the utmost importance in all aspects, it seems to be changing, people will sacrifice picture quality, for a bigger picture. This is an av science forum.

Again I totally understand the issue comparing tv's to projector screen, the kuro was amazing, but was just to small, again though at certain sizes I just feel going to big is to much, to much loss of picture quality and diminishing returns. Going above 96, I noticed a bigger picture but loss in quality, i just was not willing to sacrifice.

If i was to increase my projector size, I would need studios to really improve the quality of their transfers.

My w5000 does have the latest update. I agree, the picture looks really good yet at 106 and is bigger, but my point is it still had alot more punch, and sharpness, and looked better at 92. While I still felt immersed in the picture and it was not to small. Going less I would probably find the image to small. I guess the issue is more people are willing to give up pq for size, then i am. AGain 106 it still looked very good, and was bigger, but the scenes just noticeably looked less sharp, and less punch. And these are on nearly perfect transfers.

I guess i just dont get the go bigger, go bigger feelings while the picture quality falls, again depending on your seating distance.

And again its not just the projector, look at the tier rankings in the blue ray forum. I couldnt even imagine watching a sub part transfrer on a larger screen. If their were alot of excellent transfers, I would say go bigger, i would be on board with all of you. But their are not alot. Their is alot of crappy edge enhancement, halos, dnr, and digital noise. blue rays , that shows up even more. It must drive some of you crazy. The guys in the blue ray forum with 50-60 inch plasmas go nuts when they see this on their displays.

Fleaman, agreed , thats why Im constantly bringing up viewing distance.

Im all for the huge screens at proper viewing distance. Im not so stoked on the huge screens a few feet away.

Again im between 10-14 feet away.

I dont mean to discredit people on this thread, your all very knowledgeable, and opinions very important.

Today I asked my kids and they said go bigger!

I asked a few other freinds, and the first thing they said is, wont the picture quality come down? This is coming from a 26 year old man, who still uses a 4:3 crt tv.

So you would expect on the avscience forum, im more then shocked about this bigger is better attitude.

Again I dont know what blue rays you view, but their is so many terrible blue ray transfers out their.

Nothing takes me out of a movie more then picture quality flaws. Thats why Im shocked at the people who still want bigger from only a few feet away.

I would rather have a good looking picture a bit smaller, then a large picture, with poor quality, showing all the films flaws.

I think I would probably have some people agree with me on other forums (blue-ray) but the projector/screen forum, I always felt held picture quality as its most important aspect.

Im sorry Im just really perplexed, Im only 25 years old myself, but maybe its a changing of the times. Size before quality.

My point is you want immersion, but doesnt ugly looking poor quality, overprocessed, dnr, edge enhanced crap, blown up on a big screen take you out of a movie?

Again Im all for big screens at proper viewing distance, but this forum seems to be going in the direction of just wanting a bigger picture, no matter how bad it looks. Im just confused by it. I expect that from the majority of the public who also put their tv's in torch mode, but for avscience forum, with knowledgable members who spend hundreds of dollars just to have their projectors isf calibrated, i find it odd that people here will still go bigger just for the sake of going big.

I would cringe if I spent money on my isf calibrated projector to look great, and then completely ruin it by getting the biggest screen i can, blowing the picture up, and sitting a few feet away, it kind of defeats the purpose does it not?