Originally Posted by stanger89
I posted in your other thread, but NHK found improvement in realness up to 310 pixels/degree in their study, with most benefit occurring up to 120 pixels/degree. Of course it's important to note that this isn't saying you can't have good picture quality at lower resolutions, a lot of us got quite a bit of enjoyment out of 720p and even 480p displays, but that doesn't mean our current 1080p machines aren't better.
Frankly I think the whole resolution thing is overblown, from both perspectives. In practice we really don't have a choice, we all have a budget that we must stick to and we must choose a projector based on that budget. On top of that, the best new quality features always go into the newest, highest end products. When 1080p appeared, manufacturers put all their best technology, best PQ into their 1080p displays, leaving 720p machines behind. Today, the same thing is happening with 4K, if you want the best picture from any given manufacturer, you're necessarily going to be buying a 4K or "4K" display. Sony's 4K projectors wipe the floor with their 1080p models, which have been relegated to entry level status. Same with JVC and Epson (even if they are "Faux K"). You're budget is going to determine the "amount" of image quality you can buy, and the resolution you get will just be a side effect of that.
Originally Posted by bud16415
Again thanks for posting in the other thread. I will say those people in the <$3000 forum and it is really the <$1000 forum and here in the CIH forum there is a wider mix of budgets with lens and zoom being two widely different priced options and soon to be the 4k zoom people I’m sure.
But I always tell people in the <$1000 forum that your projector is only 1/3 the visual experience your screen and room each take the other 2/3 of the job. For the vast number of those folks spending $10 on the room can equal $100 on the projector and the same for screens that work better in the less than perfect rooms. Lots of folks have budgets they spend 90% on an entry 1080 projector and the other 10% on a white screen and wonder why they can’t watch with a wall of south facing windows mid-day. In those cases 30% going to a 720 projector, 60% to the room and 10% for a DIY dark screen might be the ticket. When guys like ddigler come here with a desire and no experience and confront a chart that says forget it unless you have 4k when he has the firepower for his 140” dream to come true, is when I think we need a way to depict resolution problems differently. In his case he has the projector now and is commenting “ignorance must be bliss” after seeing what he is seeing. Most don’t just say aww its good enough, most are actually blown away and looking on the box the projector came in wondering if they got a secret 8k unit by mistake.
Most newcomers to FP can’t go to Walmart and see a 1080 projector running or go anyplace and see one. I took a leap of faith with my first one 10 years ago. Now we see them a little in school or at work and see the washed out images they produce and that is the only background many have.
Better is always better and costs more for sure. But if you could take a $700 projector back in time 10 years and show it off I wonder what the reactions would be? I don’t think human eyes have evolved much in that ten years but our tastes have I think.
Originally Posted by stanger89
My point about budget wasn't that more budget is better, it's that you get whatever resolution you get based on your budget. For example I can't take $5000 to Sony and choose between a 4K machine with mediocre contrast/brightness/color and a 2K machine with great contrast/brightness/color, there just isn't such an option. Ignoring resolution, if I want the best picture quality possible with Sony, I have to get a 4K machine, and my budget either will, or won't allow that. Ignoring resolution, if you go to any manufacturer, you just can't get a 2K machine that matches or exceeds the performance of their 4K offerings.
The same thing happened with the introduction of 1080p, when TI introduced 1080p DMDs, it marked the end of the road for 720p picture quality improvements, if you wanted top quality and had the budget, your only option was a 1080p machine, those had the DMDs with the latest contrast improvements.
You'll take your budget, go to the store, and what you walk out with may or may not be 4K but you won't have really had to decide between 2K and 4K. It's probably a little different in the flat panel world because there's been a glut of cheap "4K" flat panels released, but in the projection world, manufacturers just drop the older resolutions on the floor when they start building new ones. Just look at Sony, you'll never see a 2K machine that matches the quality (still ignoring resolution) of their 4K offerings. JVC doesn't even offer an option without e-Shift, and likewise, you're not going to see a pure 2K Epson that matches their LS10000 (though the LS9600 might come close).
Quite the good discussion going here, guys.
I think ddigler is a big boy. I don't read from his posts that your chart, Carlton, has dashed his dreams. His dreams aren't dashed, but there is a learning curve and, to his credit, he is working his way up on it. He needs to be an informed AV fan/consumer. As he gathers useful information, he will impart his understanding, perceptions, and priorities to the many factors. Then he will make informed decisions that he will likely not regret or feel like he spent unwisely. That's what this site is and always has been about. We "old hats" are offering him good advice. Keep it coming...because I'm sure he appreciates it and will process it all to his benefit. I think he's going to do just fine.