Originally Posted by CAVX
Such as your H1500FE Tim. So why don't you use it?
It won't physically fit in my current setup. Well, I could get it to fit probably but that would probably mean lowering projector even further to the point where one seat on the couch would put a person's head in the light path.
My projector is placed behind the back wall underneath a nook under the stairs into the basement. I was originally planning on putting it on the ceiling but the throw ratio was going to be just barely long enough.
Tucking the projector behind the back wall really makes a clean install. Not to mention the head knocking hazard from a projector and lens installed with 6.5' ceilings!
I could maybe modify my hole in the back wall to get the lens in there but it's ceder paneling which isn't the easiest to patch back up if you want to go back. And the combination of studs and floor joist make fitment a big problem. I'd have to get up and go turn the two knobs on the lens anyway even if I could get it to fit (or pay another $500 for the remote option, which is tempting...).
I'll check it out next week but I just don't see their being a $2000 benefit from it anymore. Who knows though. Everytime I think about the full automation it sure sounds sweet.
True, but increasing panel display resolution is better then no increase at all...
At least we can agree there...
Yeah, I admit that my little test shows that the increase in even 1.33x vertical resolution provides a noticable increase in smoothness. At some view distance this won't be noticable. At what point? I'll leave that to the visual acuity gurus. There is still the smoothing of contrast lines that is a slight negative but the benefits look to out weigh the positives.
This set up is a compromise due to a lack of space, but that changes next month. I used to be at 3.5x the image height for both zooming and then the lens.
I found that I could still see the pixels when zooming. I don't seem then with the lens, which is why I use it to this day.
The scaling in my projector is not the best, but it beats zooming hands down in my case.
In my current place, I am about 2.5x the image height, so need to keep those vertical pixels as small as I can...
Here's the crux of what I'm getting at. CIH can work with both a lens and by zooming. My setup zooming has a higher pixel density than 720p users with a lens. Over 12% more vertically. 50%
Does that make your system not one that is done correctly? No. If someone has even more resolution with a 1080p projector and a lens does that make my setup incorrect? No.
It sounds like you can't see the pixels at 2.5x the image height. I sit at 2.7x the image height and likewise can't see the pixels with my setup that is using 633600 more pixels. My total pixel count is 69% more than your setup. Will adding even more resolution improve the picture quality a noticable from where I sit? Possibly. But with my short throw there will be some geometric distortion and chromatic aberration introduced along with the added cost. Tradeoffs. Compromises. Still correct.
People need to stop saying something is incorrect just cause their is something out there that is possibly better.
People need to stop saying zooming is 'wasting precious pixels' when the zoomers already more resolution then they do.