Are Projectors dead? - Page 3 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 577Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 10:52 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
tigerhonaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN. USA
Posts: 2,520
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1079 Post(s)
Liked: 1323
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tleavit View Post
I very much recognize that everyone is an expert here but I've been doing this myself for 30 years. There's little you can do to convince me that any normal projector can even remotely effectively compete against the OLED given similar viewing ratios with out a doubt (good luck with even the brightness in hdr). This isn't a fan-boy thing, I've primarily run projectors for 15 years. Qualifying that in a normal 95%+ situation in the market. People can give dance around the topic and do the usual "you need to see one calibrated" (typical argument that is grasping at straws... or a strawman itself). I've been around here for a while and there is a few guys I know here who know there stuff whom I have taken their advice like bigmouthdc in home theater. Other then that, I think we are getting pulled around again by vendors and people who are either really fan boy about there tech or they are vendors with fanatical interest in shooting down comments like this (for any normal person who may be reading this thread). It would be nice if posters noted if they are in this industry with financial interest. That all I have to say about this. Until we see a true scientific comparison, I trust my own visual acuity more then what Im hearing from some people here. I have no doubt that purchasing a 77" OLED in my new theater with seating closer to the source will be vastly suspicious in any possible way then any projector for anything near 3x the price. Prove that wrong with data and I will admit Im wrong. Call me a troll, call me a dump chimp... I've been dealing with trolls since before the internet was http... it really doesn't phase me. But prove me wrong with data and I will fully agree. Again, there is a history here of people who attach to things and dont give them up (I fought the hd-dvd people even though I had a unit) and I dont feel I've been wrong. Sorry if that breaks some peoples vested interests. All you gotta do is read the quote in my titles to know how I feel. I have a computer science teacher once tell me Intel would never make a chip faster then the Pentium 100mhz proc since you could boil eggs on it. I challenged him, he got upset, but I was right... my new i9-10900K sure is a bit faster. These forums have become impossible to try to have civil discourse in so... ya... Im out of here. To much ego...

Maybe Ill come back in 10 year and give it a "I told you so"... but you'd probably call me a dumb chimp again.
tleavit,

I just now stumbled on this thread you started.

So, 1st thing I want to say to you is, I'm not a vendor nor do I sell anything at all including any and all Audio/Video gear.

I'm what's commonly referred to as an End-User.

This is why I have a dedicated H/T.
It's all about Audio as well as Video to me.
It makes no difference at all if a given size OLED had the superior overall images or not.
Especially if we are speaking of say a 77" OLED flat-screen as an example and the latest/greatest technology for it.
Example,
I am in a 24' Long, 20' Wide by say 9' for center ceiling.
In this H/T I have a 123" 16x9 screen.
I also have the JVC RS4500 laser projector.
I sit approximately 12' 6-inches from the screen.
The audio is what's referred to as a 7.4.6 speaker system.
In a completely Pitch-Black room.

So, what I'm attempting to share with you is simple.
There is No-Way that switching to any 77" or similar size OLED flat-screen would even remotely come close to the Audio & Video that I currently have.
It's the Total Experience buddy I'm speaking of not what has the best overall images for it's given size.

Home Theaters have a place for those of us that have the Funds to have them just as the 77" or Similar OLED has it's place.

I'm personally not one of the AVS members that's Biased on Brand Loyalty at all.

It's simply a matter of what the individual likes, prefers, wants and is 100% satisfied with that in the end counts.

Personally and ONLY speaking for myself if your Happy with your 77" OLED flat-screen that's truly what really matters as far as I am concerned.

I've attempted/tried to give you from my point of view why my dedicated H/T is what I love and why.

Peace brother man,
Terry Honaker
BP1Fanatic and skylarlove1999 like this.
tigerhonaker is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 10:56 AM
Advanced Member
 
JediFonger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 944
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 226 Post(s)
Liked: 57
if ya'll watching only latest tv/movies then i guess it may work.

but if you watch anything older than a decade and older films... i'd say there's a huge advantage of larger screens.

99% of the tv/movie content is not 4k/uhr. i'd even venture to say a majority of them aren't even 1080p HD ready >P.

i host a silent film podcast here:
https://anchor.fm/watchingsilentfilms
^that or everywhere podcasts are found. or find out where else here:
https://watchingsilentfilms.wordpress.com/
JediFonger is offline  
post #63 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 10:57 AM
 
skylarlove1999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Honey Brook Pennsylvania
Posts: 4,171
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2276 Post(s)
Liked: 2439
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlochner View Post
you are suppose to be 1.5 - 2.0 times diagonal back from the screen to keep your eyes from being fatigued.

this ratio is fixed, being that we are humans. the technology may say bigger is available, but it is not better.

quality is better, deeper blacks, brighter screens, more colors, more pixels to make cleaner lines,

but 1.5 - 2.0 times diagonal back is fixed.



1.5 times back for a 77" screen is 9.7 ft.

1.5 times back for a 120" screen is 15.0 ft.



you also need room behind for good speaker placement, so add 3ft plus.

120" projector requires 18ft deep room.

the ******* who wants 200" needs 300/12=25 +3 = 28ft deep +++.



i'm currently trying to buy a home with about 18 of depth.

that requires, 18-3=15*12/1.5=120 in screen max.

maybe i want to be a little further back than 1.5 let's say 1.7 , and i want to be 3 ft from the speaker that are 2 ft from the rear wall.

18-(3+2)=13*12/1.7= 91" screen. that's what i think that room supports.

can i get an ultra high end LCD, close to that, in 8k resolution, for $10000 ... maybe.

that's the goal.
I would love to see the study of people who watched at 1.5-2.0 times diagonal back and when they moved closer to a 4K display they were able to measure eye fatigue. LOL. Those ratios haven't been relevant since 480P content. Not trying to offend but I think you will find most people laughing at those ratios for 4K. I sit 12 ft back from a 140 inch 2:39 screen. The only getting fatigued is my wallet from buying 4K discs and renting streaming movies at home. LOL.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
skylarlove1999 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #64 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 11:11 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
Moderator
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 26,122
Mentioned: 78 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1846 Post(s)
Liked: 2813
Your perdiction from 2015......

Quote:
Originally Posted by tleavit View Post
My Panny is 8 years old now... tens of thousands of hours on her. I've been waiting for something to replace her with. She projects to my 133" screen.

I'm thinking these new VR tech's are going to kill of projectors. Why? Because staring into the VR headset watching a movie can be like sitting in front of a massive screen. Are home theaters dead? Sure there will be people who will want to be "retro" but when anyone can buy a VR headset, sit there as if they were staring at a 30 foot screen with goggles on, the general market will fold.

My guess is that the new Sony unit made for the PS4 (and obviously Bluray or even ultra Bluray) is going to really make a nice movie experience.
You prediction from 2020.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by tleavit View Post
Im out of here. To much ego...

Maybe Ill come back in 10 year and give it a "I told you so"... but you'd probably call me a dumb chimp again.
Some predictions don't age well and time will tell

In all seriousness, I'm not sure what you expected when you posted in the 3K+ projector forum. This maybe no different than an Oakland Raider fan coming in and calling for the Chiefs demise in the Chiefs Kingdom fan site.

As far as name calling: I did not interpret the post you are referring to calling you a name, but I did delete the post since if you interpreted that way, then it crossed the line (and added no value to the discussion).

As many have said, projectors have been, are and going to be a niche market. Even though we sold a house with an HT in it last year (and for some potential buyers it was a negative)....I've installed and will eventually build out an HT in our new basement. It's a bad "investment" that a future buyer may look at it as a negative...so why? Because the dedicated space gives us so much usage and joy. It's money well spent. I think projector enthusiast view their purchases the same way. Wil the projector go away in the future (probably). Will it morph into something new (big screens from the 70's and 80's vs the sleek large screens today)? Probably.

What we are both talking about and supporting is having the commercial cinema (or version of it) in our homes. I think we can all get behind that idea.
skylarlove1999 likes this.

FS: RUIPRO 8K Fiber DisplayPort Cable 33 feet : https://www.avsforum.com/forum/211-a...d-support.html
rboster is online now  
post #65 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 11:12 AM
Senior Member
 
pdjmwj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 207
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Projector, Absolutely

I just moved from a dedicated man cave theater with 126 inch screen served up with a JVC 4k. I can tell you I am in tears every time I watch a movie or listen to music. It's what sold my house with a full price offer in 2 days. It took me 3 years to find the home I am in now as an empty unfinished space big enough to build a new man cave was top of my list.

Life's a beach and then you die....
pdjmwj is offline  
post #66 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 11:14 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
tigerhonaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN. USA
Posts: 2,520
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1079 Post(s)
Liked: 1323
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylarlove1999 View Post
I would love to see the study of people who watched at 1.5-2.0 times diagonal back and when they moved closer to a 4K display they were able to measure eye fatigue. LOL. Those ratios haven't been relevant since 480P content. Not trying to offend but I think you will find most people laughing at those ratios for 4K. I sit 12 ft back from a 140 inch 2:39 screen. The only getting fatigued is my wallet from buying 4K discs and renting streaming movies at home. LOL.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
skylarlove1999,





Terry
skylarlove1999 likes this.
tigerhonaker is offline  
post #67 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 11:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mocs123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,280
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 631 Post(s)
Liked: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlochner View Post
you are suppose to be 1.5 - 2.0 times diagonal back from the screen to keep your eyes from being fatigued.
this ratio is fixed, being that we are humans. the technology may say bigger is available, but it is not better.
quality is better, deeper blacks, brighter screens, more colors, more pixels to make cleaner lines,
but 1.5 - 2.0 times diagonal back is fixed.

1.5 times back for a 77" screen is 9.7 ft.
1.5 times back for a 120" screen is 15.0 ft.

you also need room behind for good speaker placement, so add 3ft plus.
120" projector requires 18ft deep room.
the ******* who wants 200" needs 300/12=25 +3 = 28ft deep +++.

i'm currently trying to buy a home with about 18 of depth.
that requires, 18-3=15*12/1.5=120 in screen max.
maybe i want to be a little further back than 1.5 let's say 1.7 , and i want to be 3 ft from the speaker that are 2 ft from the rear wall.
18-(3+2)=13*12/1.7= 91" screen. that's what i think that room supports.
can i get an ultra high end LCD, close to that, in 8k resolution, for $10000 ... maybe.
that's the goal.

For what it's worth, THX recommends a seating distance of 12.3 feet for a 120" 16:9 screen (and 7.9 feet for a 77" screen) .



I have a 142" 2.35:1 screen and sit at 11 feet with no eye fatigue at least during a 3 hour movie. I've done some longer sessions with 16:9 content wich is ~114" on my screen. I have ~7 feet behind my MLP and the rear wall.



200" screens as you say are not very feasable, first off as you mention is the room size needed, but also very few projectors have that sort of light output.



8K resolution is not going to add anything to HT and will be a marketing poly. We don't sit close enough to be able to see the differnce between 8K and 4K. Not to mention that we hardly have any real 4K content (even most UHD 4K disks are upscaled from a 2K intermediary souce), and we're not likely to ever get an 8K physical media source. Streaming, even in 4K is barely 1080p Blu-Ray quality, though it does add HDR, which is an improvement.


I came from CRT, to DLP, to Plasma - and have always found LCD's to look disapointing, especially black levels. If you are buying a TV today for serious viewing, OLED TV is the way to go, at least for a person used to dark black levels.
tigerhonaker likes this.

7.4.4 Theater Room: JVC-RS500, Silver Ticket AT 2.35:1 142”, Onkyo RZ830, Anthem PVA-7, Panasonic UB420, Apple TV 4K, JBL Studio 530’s, Dual Driver VBSS

3.1 Living Room: Samsung 64” F8500 Plasma, Anthem MRX 300, Dynaudio Audience 52’s, Dynaudio Audience 122C, NHT SubOne, Roku Express (2019)
Mocs123 is offline  
post #68 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 11:14 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,626
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14054 Post(s)
Liked: 11735
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlochner View Post
you are suppose to be 1.5 - 2.0 times diagonal back from the screen to keep your eyes from being fatigued.
this ratio is fixed, being that we are humans. the technology may say bigger is available, but it is not better.
quality is better, deeper blacks, brighter screens, more colors, more pixels to make cleaner lines,
but 1.5 - 2.0 times diagonal back is fixed.

1.5 times back for a 77" screen is 9.7 ft.
1.5 times back for a 120" screen is 15.0 ft.

you also need room behind for good speaker placement, so add 3ft plus.
120" projector requires 18ft deep room.
the ******* who wants 200" needs 300/12=25 +3 = 28ft deep +++.

i'm currently trying to buy a home with about 18 of depth.
that requires, 18-3=15*12/1.5=120 in screen max.
maybe i want to be a little further back than 1.5 let's say 1.7 , and i want to be 3 ft from the speaker that are 2 ft from the rear wall.
18-(3+2)=13*12/1.7= 91" screen. that's what i think that room supports.
can i get an ultra high end LCD, close to that, in 8k resolution, for $10000 ... maybe.
that's the goal.
It was 1.5 to 2.0 times width of 16:9 screen, not diagonal. Also that was based on 1080P not 4k. Look at the attached chart. 1.5 times 120" diagonal is 15'. That is right at full benefit of 1080P, but zero benefit for 4K resolution. 2.0 times 120" is 20'. That places you a long ways from seeing any benefit of 4K. Heck you are not even seeing full benefit of 1080P at that distance on a 120" diagonal screen. You really should be talking to someone regarding design of your new room, so that you can get the best results for your money.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #69 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 11:16 AM
Newbie
 
digunderground's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by cky2354 View Post
For me, it has been exactly opposite! I had a 65" LG OLED for about 3 years and I thought there was nothing that could beat the experience.. it was so amazing when I got it.. better than any crappy projector I was using before. Then I got a 4K HDR projector in March displaying 150" scope picture (Epson 5050ub which is not even the top of line JVCs)..... I have not turned on my OLED TV since then.... LOL. My kids refuse to watch the TV and will only watch movies on the projector.
Similar story here - I have a 75" LG OLED and decided to try out a projector, not even a good one at that. I purchased an Optoma UHL55 when they were clearing them out for $500, its FauxK but figured worst case I'd upgrade and relegate it's use to our inflatable pool screen in the back yard. I still plan to upgrade to a "real" consumer-grade 4K unit but wanted to test with a low budget. Does it match the black level of the OLED - nope not even close. Is it as sharp and glossy as the OLED - nope. Is the 3D on the OLED better - Yup. BUT - at 9' viewing distance the 150" screen is mindblowingly more immersive when compared to the 75" OLED. I had placed the OLED on a $120 rolling (think meeting room) stand and had the anticipation of rolling it in front of the fixed screen when I wanted "that quality only the OLED can produce" - this hasn't happened once, I use it for gaming occasionally (my projector has a garbage response time) and that's it. I can only imagine how much better it would be with a proper projector that has actual black levels.

in short - I don't think projectors are dead, they are a niche product and cover the void for people that are willing to give up some (even a fair amount) reproduction quality for incredible size. Arguing about this is like fighting over which movie or band is better. Sure there are metrics and they will undoubtedly show that OLED outshines almost anything in quality for the price, everything is a tradeoff until we have OLED wall paint with standalone signal processors - there's a TON of personal preference with anything HT related, so it's what fits for you IMHO.
digunderground is offline  
post #70 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 11:21 AM
Advanced Member
 
Debonaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 511
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlochner View Post
you are suppose to be 1.5 - 2.0 times diagonal back from the screen to keep your eyes from being fatigued.
Where do you get that? THX does those distances before 4k was a thing. I've done extensive personal tests. The closest you can get is 0.8x before you need to turn your head to see the edges of the screen. I've watched for like six hour stretches at a time like that. No eye fatigue at all.

That means I can sit approximately a little under 7 feet from my 120" screen.
skylarlove1999 likes this.
Debonaire is offline  
post #71 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 11:24 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,626
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14054 Post(s)
Liked: 11735
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debonaire View Post
Where do you get that? THX does those distances before 4k was a thing. I've done extensive personal tests. The closest you can get is 0.8x before you need to turn your head to see the edges of the screen. I've watched for like six hour stretches at a time like that. No eye fatigue at all.

That means I can sit approximately a little under 7 feet from my 120" screen.
What he posted was not even correct for 1080P. He should have said 1.5 to 2.0 times width of screen, not diagonal.
skylarlove1999 likes this.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #72 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 11:30 AM
Advanced Member
 
Debonaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 511
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
What he posted was not even correct for 1080P. He should have said 1.5 to 2.0 times width of screen, not diagonal.
I was doing width. 0.8 * 104 = 6'11.2". That's also the distance you need to be to see all the detail of 4k clearly. People sit way closer than that when doing computer jobs.

Why you get eye fatigue has more to do with how bright the screen is in a pitch black room. When you're that close if you get much over 10 ftl, your eyes do begin to hurt. Even Joe Kane suggests you do not much over 10 ftl, and get a new bulb at ~7 ftl.

People with CRT projectors would sit that close all the time since the projector has a throw of ~1.35 - 1.5x. So lots would get ~1.0 are closer with no problems. A CRT also was giving ~8 ftl.
Debonaire is offline  
post #73 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 11:30 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 18,027
Mentioned: 154 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8059 Post(s)
Liked: 10658
I'm at .91 screen diagonal away. I could move closer.

Anything not projection is not a " theater " in my opinion. Seeing as I haven't had a flat panel TV other than a small cheap one from Costco for watching the news and crap for the last 14 years, TV's are dead as far as I'm concerned.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	46boq0.jpg
Views:	79
Size:	78.6 KB
ID:	2748706   Click image for larger version

Name:	46boy2.jpg
Views:	69
Size:	79.4 KB
ID:	2748708   Click image for larger version

Name:	46bp8f.jpg
Views:	71
Size:	79.8 KB
ID:	2748710  
Craig Peer is online now  
post #74 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 11:31 AM
Newbie
 
tobytune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Exclamation But what about 3D?

Yea, except that projectors are the only ones now that can show 3D. And I'm not giving up my 200+ 3D movies for a flat panel. So projectors are the only option as well as a large image with the smallest cost.
digunderground likes this.
tobytune is offline  
post #75 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 11:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bdht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,537
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 798 Post(s)
Liked: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoaaron View Post
The problem isn't contrast. Its the pixel level control over brightness which OLEDS have and what HDR is designed around. How can projector compete or re-create specular highlights which an OLED can do. I saw Kingdom on my OLED and their torches looked amazing when holding them during a dimly light (not dark scene). I remember seeing that same scene on my PJ and it didn't have this dimension of image quality because the tech can't recreate it.
There is a difference between emissive screens and illuminated screens. SDR is mastered at 100 nits, but the standard for projection is 50 nits. The last Eclipse demo was shown at 70 nits peak white and the reactions were that it looked like several hundred nits hdr with oled contrast, only with drastically superior color, motion, and low level detail.

OLEDs pixel control is superior to liquid crystal, but inferior to DLP. oled has a separate white led, and typically color highlights arent comparable to white highlights, high saturation and color highlight performance goes to rgb led/laser dlp as well. It has due to do with the nature of the voltage drive of the leds, vs the electrostatic attraction of the dlp mirrors, as well as the light source.
skylarlove1999 likes this.
bdht is online now  
post #76 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 11:34 AM
Advanced Member
 
Debonaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 511
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
I'm at .91 screen diagonal away. I could move closer.

Anything not projection is not a " theater " in my opinion. Seeing as I haven't had a flat panel TV other than a small cheap one from Costco for watching the news and crap for the last 14 years, TV's are dead as far as I'm concerned.
When I was a kid, I would lie flat on my stomach about ~2 feet from a 27" playing my NES. My eyes are still 20/15. So yeah, the whole "eye strain" at less than 1.5x is total rubbish!
Debonaire is offline  
post #77 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 11:38 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,626
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14054 Post(s)
Liked: 11735
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debonaire View Post
I was doing width. 0.8 * 104 = 6'11.2". That's also the distance you need to be to see all the detail of 4k clearly. People sit way closer than that when doing computer jobs.

Why you get eye fatigue has more to do with how bright the screen is in a pitch black room. When you're that close if you get much over 10 ftl, your eyes do begin to hurt. Even Joe Kane suggests you do not much over 10 ftl, and get a new bulb at ~7 ftl.

People with CRT projectors would sit that close all the time since the projector has a throw of ~1.35 - 1.5x. So lots would get ~1.0 are closer with no problems. A CRT also was giving ~8 ftl.
I was not referring to you. I was referring to the poster you quoted. That poster is the one that said 1.5 to 2.0 times diagonal. He should have said 1.5 to 2.0 times width. And as I said earlier, that spec referred to 1080P, not 4K.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #78 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 11:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dkersten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 1,250
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 792 Post(s)
Liked: 1405
I will put my RS2000, Paladin DCR lens, and 150" wide screen against ANY equivalently sized OLED or LCD screen for picture quality any day of the week.

Of course, there isn't a ~165" diagonal scope format OLED available to buy, but even if there were, it would cost what, $150k.. 250k?? Probably much more, and how much to fix it when it burns in? My ~$15k setup would look just as good on 95% of movie scenes as that giant OLED costing 10-50 times more money, and will still give the OLED a run for its money on the 2.5% ADL scenes. Even comparing apples to oranges and disregarding the size and cost differences, my video setup is pretty damn amazing. I don't ever feel like I lack contrast or even brightness on HDR scenes. I prefer my theater over the ultra high end flat panels in other rooms, with few exceptions.

The fact is though, if you are OK with a tiny screen in your media room, then OLED is an amazing technology. For the average joe, OLED or Quantum Dot LCD is the pinnacle of video, and let's be honest, a 65" screen is "big" to average people. A lot of people that come to watch my theater will sit in the back row where they are 17 ft from the screen. I feel like it is too small when sitting back there, but I'm never going to tell them they are doing it wrong. If I had to restrict my theater to something like a 10x10 room where my seating distance is like 6-7 feet, I would easily choose a large OLED over a projector. And if my budget were locked in around that $2500 range, I could see where a 65" OLED would be preferable to a 100" screen with a DLP or cheaper LCD projector.


With public theaters closed and the possibility of the end of public theaters on the horizon, there are a lot of people who will continue to desire the "big screen" in their own homes for at least the next couple decades. There are more uses for high end projectors than just high end home cinema, so projector technology will continue to exist, and that means that the possibility of filling the niche of high end home theater will be there as well. So no, I don't think projectors are dead, and in fact I think there are more options today than ever before.
dkersten is offline  
post #79 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 11:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
dovercat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 858
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 202 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlochner View Post
you are suppose to be 1.5 - 2.0 times diagonal back from the screen to keep your eyes from being fatigued.
this ratio is fixed, being that we are humans. the technology may say bigger is available, but it is not better.
quality is better, deeper blacks, brighter screens, more colors, more pixels to make cleaner lines,
but 1.5 - 2.0 times diagonal back is fixed.

1.5 times back for a 77" screen is 9.7 ft.
1.5 times back for a 120" screen is 15.0 ft.

you also need room behind for good speaker placement, so add 3ft plus.
120" projector requires 18ft deep room.
the ******* who wants 200" needs 300/12=25 +3 = 28ft deep +++.

i'm currently trying to buy a home with about 18 of depth.
that requires, 18-3=15*12/1.5=120 in screen max.
maybe i want to be a little further back than 1.5 let's say 1.7 , and i want to be 3 ft from the speaker that are 2 ft from the rear wall.
18-(3+2)=13*12/1.7= 91" screen. that's what i think that room supports.
can i get an ultra high end LCD, close to that, in 8k resolution, for $10000 ... maybe.
that's the goal.
1.5x diagonal is equivalent to the SMPTE recommendation for the farthest back seat in a cinema 4x image height. 4x image height for a 2.4:1 aspect ratio film would be about 1.5x diagonal.
2x diagonal is equivalent to the THX maximum farthest back seat in cinemas converted to THX 5.18x image height. 5.18x image height for a 2.4:1 aspect ratio film would be about 2x diagonal.
Those are farthest back seat recommended/acceptable in a cinema. And is based on image height for 2.4:1 aspect ratio, so for a 16:9 film you would need to be closer to even equal the farthest back seat.

1.5x diagonal to 2x diagonal is not best/optimal seat in the cinema its the farthest back or worse.
skylarlove1999 likes this.

Projectiondesign F30 1080 VizSim with EN15 lens.130" white painted screen.
KEF Cresta 30 front speakers. Cresta 20c centre speaker. Cresta 10 rear speakers. Rega Vulcan subwoofer. Dayton Audio TT25-8 PUCK Tactile Transducers.
Samsung BD-H6500 Bluray player. Sony STR-DB930 AV Receiver (Dolby Digital/DTS 5.1)
Bat cave room.

Last edited by dovercat; 06-25-2020 at 11:51 AM.
dovercat is offline  
post #80 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 11:47 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 18,027
Mentioned: 154 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8059 Post(s)
Liked: 10658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debonaire View Post
When I was a kid, I would lie flat on my stomach about ~2 feet from a 27" playing my NES. My eyes are still 20/15. So yeah, the whole "eye strain" at less than 1.5x is total rubbish!
Plus, a home " theater " is hopefully a room where you and at least 4 or 5 people ( in my case 6 - 8 people ) can watch a movie together. Hard to do that with a small TV. Feels too much like this -
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	tvfamily.gif
Views:	61
Size:	126.2 KB
ID:	2748718  
Craig Peer is online now  
post #81 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 11:52 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,455
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2666 Post(s)
Liked: 2378
Looking at the recent new projectors by JVC and some others over the last year or so, I would say home projection is more in a golden age vs being dead. The performance for the money has never been better.

Watching scope (or even 1:85) movies on a 77" OLED would be very unfulfilling to me.

I'll take a 9 foot wide scope screen in my room with a JVC over an OLED any day of the week. Zero comparison in overall presentation and cinematic experience. And while there is no denying the truly infinite contrast of an OLED, I still prefer the natural look of projection and the analog look of LCoS/D-ILA as the blacks are still pretty darn good.


Click image for larger version

Name:	screen2.jpg
Views:	51
Size:	14.9 KB
ID:	2748720
llang269 and jorgebetancourt like this.
DavidHir is offline  
post #82 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 11:57 AM
Advanced Member
 
Debonaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 511
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Plus, a home " theater " is hopefully a room where you and at least 4 or 5 people ( in my case 6 - 8 people ) can watch a movie together. Hard to do that with a small TV. Feels too much like this -
I don't think he's converted anyone. Most people "convert" back to an emissive display because a PJ end up being too much of a hassle. A few friends went back after their first bulb died, and they decided installing a new one wasn't worth it.

Also, unless you have ~10,000 lumen projector with a BD 0.8 screen, watching in a darkened room isn't too much fun when you have 4 or 5, or in your case 6 to 8. They tend to trip a lot, and complain when they spill their beer on someone.

A regular ALR screen just won't cut it, unless you got the lumens which is ~30 ftl, about 2 to 3 times what most people have in a HT.
Debonaire is offline  
post #83 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 12:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
DougUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Posts: 1,409
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 821 Post(s)
Liked: 743
Ok, maybe I'm not vested in this enough, but I don't understand why this debate got so ugly so fast?

OP had a projector, now has a flatscreen, prefers it so doesn't need a PJ any more.
I have a flatscreen, then got the dedicated PJ, prefer it, so don't use the TV for anything other than gaming anymore.
How did this change from "preference" to "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE".

Given that the conversation changed to "seating distance", I think we can all agree that if you have a smaller room or a single row like the OP, then a smaller flatscreen is better. If you have a larger room, multiple rows, further seating distances, PJ is better. They each do things that the other can't. Talking about "ratios", "optimal distance", "resolution", "facts and math", is silly. Everyone is cherry-picking the metrics they bring up that support their side of the argument anyway. THAT's OK. You like what you like, everyone else doesn't have to. This isn't Social Media people, it's OK to like different things.

For me personally, movie watching is still an event. People come over, there's popcorn, it's a social gathering. Going into the Movie Room is fun, people fight for their favorite chairs. Some like the front row, some the back. I care more about the audio, my wife about the video. I'm running a 5 y/o Epson 5030 and 120" Falcon AT screen. That's probably 1/2 the price of what I spent on the (65-70?) Pioneer Plasma that's in the game room. The reason one is in the game room and the other in the movie room is PREFERENCE.

IMO, this is a Coke vs. Pepsi, and you're all crazy. MY KIND OF CRAZY PEOPLE, but still cray-cra.
DougUSMC is online now  
post #84 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 12:10 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 18,027
Mentioned: 154 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8059 Post(s)
Liked: 10658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debonaire View Post
I don't think he's converted anyone. Most people "convert" back to an emissive display because a PJ end up being too much of a hassle. A few friends went back after their first bulb died, and they decided installing a new one wasn't worth it.

Also, unless you have ~10,000 lumen projector with a BD 0.8 screen, watching in a darkened room isn't too much fun when you have 4 or 5, or in your case 6 to 8. They tend to trip a lot, and complain when they spill their beer on someone.

A regular ALR screen just won't cut it, unless you got the lumens which is ~30 ftl, about 2 to 3 times what most people have in a HT.
Really? You have lame friends then. That's absurd. People that can't watch a movie in a dark home theater can't watch a movie in a dark commercial theater then I'd guess. All my friends LOVE watching movies in my fully darkened theater. They are seriously bummed they can't come watch during this pandemic. And they never spill drinks. Especially the $ 50.00 / bottle wine. I have 16 regulars that love coming to watch in my theater. Not one has ever tripped and spilled something in 14 years.

Anyone that complains about my theater being dark or the wine / food at my dinner parties just gets " ghosted ". Bye bye.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Stewart StudioRek 130 scope screen 2.JPG
Views:	89
Size:	2.21 MB
ID:	2748730   Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_4922_DxO.jpg
Views:	86
Size:	771.2 KB
ID:	2748732  
Craig Peer is online now  
post #85 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 12:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
Debonaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 511
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougUSMC View Post
How did this change from "preference" to "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE".
But which one? My vote is for Adrian Paul.

DougUSMC likes this.
Debonaire is offline  
post #86 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 12:18 PM
Member
 
tlochner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 11
1.5-2.0 width of screen!!!!!!

Y'all are just the point. 1.5-2.0 width of screen!!!!!!
It doesn't matter what SMPTE or THX says, and resolution doesn't matter either.
it's eye fatigue and the human ability to see everything easily over many hours over years.
this does not change if technology is enhanced.

you know, everyone is a critic. so just show us a picture of your room,
with dimensions and stop the hype.
let's see what you are really doing.
tlochner is offline  
post #87 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 12:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
Debonaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 511
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Really? You have lame friends then. That's absurd. People that can't watch a movie in a dark home theater can't watch a movie in a dark commercial theater then I'd guess. All my friends LOVE watching movies in my fully darkened theater. They are seriously bummed they can't come watch during this pandemic. And they never spill drinks. Especially the $ 50.00 / bottle wine. I have 16 regulars that love coming to watch in my theater. Not one has ever tripped and spilled something in 14 years.

Anyone that complains about my theater being dark or the wine / food at my dinner parties just gets " ghosted ". Bye bye.
Mine was a CRT projector. The room can get pretty bright at ~900 lumens. Then on a random fade to black, the room gets so dark I've had a couple friends face plant in the carpet even after warning them.

I'm sure you've seen a few really good 9" CRTs? The black level is so dark you can't see your hand in front of your face.
skylarlove1999 likes this.
Debonaire is offline  
post #88 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 12:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
deveng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,837
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 147
I don't want to hijack this thread, but I was giving a similar example from a video gaming perspective a few months back on the XBox forum and the reason why 'serious' gamers uses smaller screens and sit closer to the screen to benefit from the higher resolutions and higher frame rates in order to maintain the greatest field of view. A 30" 4K gaming monitor will be best viewed when at ~2 feet away.

The issue has always been field of view and associated resolution and distance from screen to appreciate the resolution improvement. For a cinema experience, ideally you want a 40 degree field of view, but to appreciate the difference from 1080p to 4k, you have to sit closer to the screen to appreciate the difference because of the inherent visual resolution of our retina (angular resolution).

Thus with a 77" screen the ideal distance at 40 degree field of view is 7.5 feet, but to appreciate the advantage of 4K, you need to be sitting ~5 feet away from the screen (which will cause eye strain, maybe) (the range will be 5-8 feet, but at 8 feet that is the best viewing distance for 1080p).

Here is a link to a website that does a decent quick summary of the science between field of view, monitor resolution and angular resolution. https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by...e-relationship

I suppose I can hang a 77" OLED in my home theater, and then get my 3 kids and wife to cluster together 5 feet from the screen to 'benefit' from 4K. That would probably also mean scrapping my 7.2.4 Atmos setup (because why would I need 11 speakers and 2 Woofers when I am 5 feet from the display)?

I think the whole 'home theater' setup is about the ambiance, the sound stage, and of course quality, resolution etc. I think eye strain will be a real issue as well. It is probably also a reason why some of us 'love' our Pioneer Kuro's (I have 2 65") so much, still, because none of us are sitting close enough, nor ever will to go to 4K to really appreciate the difference.

I am projecting at 133" and sitting ~14+ feet from the screen which is probably close enough 4K. I probably will need to go beyond 150" and sit closer if I ever want to go 8K.
skylarlove1999 likes this.

Xbox and PS3 Gamertag = Xerostomia
Wii = I'm too lazy to get the number
deveng is offline  
post #89 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 12:22 PM
 
skylarlove1999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Honey Brook Pennsylvania
Posts: 4,171
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2276 Post(s)
Liked: 2439
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougUSMC View Post
Ok, maybe I'm not vested in this enough, but I don't understand why this debate got so ugly so fast?



OP had a projector, now has a flatscreen, prefers it so doesn't need a PJ any more.

I have a flatscreen, then got the dedicated PJ, prefer it, so don't use the TV for anything other than gaming anymore.

How did this change from "preference" to "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE".



Given that the conversation changed to "seating distance", I think we can all agree that if you have a smaller room or a single row like the OP, then a smaller flatscreen is better. If you have a larger room, multiple rows, further seating distances, PJ is better. They each do things that the other can't. Talking about "ratios", "optimal distance", "resolution", "facts and math", is silly. Everyone is cherry-picking the metrics they bring up that support their side of the argument anyway. THAT's OK. You like what you like, everyone else doesn't have to. This isn't Social Media people, it's OK to like different things.



For me personally, movie watching is still an event. People come over, there's popcorn, it's a social gathering. Going into the Movie Room is fun, people fight for their favorite chairs. Some like the front row, some the back. I care more about the audio, my wife about the video. I'm running a 5 y/o Epson 5030 and 120" Falcon AT screen. That's probably 1/2 the price of what I spent on the (65-70?) Pioneer Plasma that's in the game room. The reason one is in the game room and the other in the movie room is PREFERENCE.



IMO, this is a Coke vs. Pepsi, and you're all crazy. MY KIND OF CRAZY PEOPLE, but still cray-cra.
You make a ton of sense. Pretty sure the OP declaring "projectors are dead" in the projector side of the forum moved the needle. LOL. The fact that this is his third time posting this same thing doesn't help either. But you sir gave a very cogent dissertation on the benefits of OLED and projector.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
DougUSMC likes this.
skylarlove1999 is offline  
post #90 of 400 Old 06-25-2020, 12:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bdht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,537
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 798 Post(s)
Liked: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
I still prefer the natural look of projection and the analog look of LCoS/D-ILA as the blacks are still pretty darn good.
Ive always found this observation a little off. By analog we're refering to film and not crt right? I think soft and noisey is a better description, and that could apply to making modern digitally photographed content looking more analog, but when displaying content shot on film I find it to be a detriment. Here, quality DLP(black floor aside) displays an image that looks exactly like the source material. Digital looks strikingly digital, but film looks like pristine film, intensely analog and dreamlike.

This is primarily due to modulation. Liquid crystals slower response time, voltage drive, and then using 3 panels to make a single pixel, results in inaccuracies when displaying video that is interpretted as analog. And as so many describe lcos as analog I think our eyes are very capable of discerning these minute differences in pixel response times.

I dont want to diminish the preference for liquid crystal technology, though. It is excellent to have options.
bdht is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off