Opinion

The size difference is probably larger than you think.

A 90" screen is 23.5 sqft. A 120" screen is 42.7 sqft. That's a difference of almost 20 square feet of screen area. That's equivalent to two whole 56" televisions worth of display area you're giving up.

Even more if you go with a larger screen.

I don't think bulb life is a big factor in going with a 90" Sharp. For example, the Sony LMPH202 replacement bulb for the HW30ES, HW50ES and VW95ES can easily be had for $300 and I would guess should easily last you a year (depending on your viewing habits). If cost is your primary concern (which I guess it is since you mention bulb life), I suggest you work out the all-in cost based on your own viewing habits.

The best reason to go with the Sharp is that you can watch it with the lights on and window shades up. However, if you can control the light in your room a projector set-up can probably be had for less, even accounting for replacing bulbs over the life of the projector.

You may also prefer the look of a projected image over that of a direct view LED panel. Personally, I do. Just like I prefer the look of a plasma display over that of an LED display.

I agree with Xank.. I'm going for 166" on my HP 235:1 set-up with my Sony HW50Es

Can't tell if you are mocking me.

If not. 166" is big. Enjoy.

I'm Not mocking you.. no reason too..

Only because 166" is extreme. I thought you might be joking. Guess not. Nice screen. Is it hard to calibrate when part of the screen is in a different timezone from the rest.

I was thinking about it.. I was going to try the 235:1 version, I'll have to remeasure the room again.. currently it's being worked on 17 x 30, may change the room to smaller config.. probably 17 x 22.. then possible will have to cut it down to smaller possible 150" .