Are Projectors dead? - Page 9 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 570Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #241 of 396 Old 06-29-2020, 11:56 AM
Member
 
Greyimporter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 67
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by b_scott View Post
there are a lot of things that will affect image quality. it's very unlikely you'll get a perfect image anyway, so your concern over checkboard, while you're projecting onto an imperfect surface, seems unimportant. I'll be projecting onto AT spandex, but even a painted wall won't be 100% perfect. these aren't OLED screens. To me it's more an exercise in "look as good as it can, but the size and experience is the main point".
There's nothing wrong with looking for the best image possible. The level of clarity is a key difference between the mediocre and great projectors. It's just not possible to determine this from any one spec.

All of the current projection display technologies have potential pros and cons. In reality though, it always comes down to the implementation for the specific projector.

1 chip designs should have a theoretical advantage over 3-chip because there is no such thing as perfect convergence. In practice, high end 3-chip devices (DLP or Lcos) are the gold standard.

3-chip non-solid state devices have a theoretical color advantage. In practice, the best color I have seen has been in high end single chip units from Barco, Projectiondesign, Christie, Runco etc.

Xenon lamps are theoretically capable of better color. In practice, this is usually not perceivable and the level of precision calibration matters far more.

Pixel shifters can be less clear but not always. Anyone who has seen Barco's current 4k shifters will know they have outstanding clarity thanks to their incredible lenses, high quality DMDs and processing.
Greyimporter is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #242 of 396 Old 06-29-2020, 12:09 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
cardoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Beyond The Wall.
Posts: 5,163
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2721 Post(s)
Liked: 3158
I have not personally seen a tv that made me want to pack the projector up, not my cousins LG OLED or the P series Vizio I have upstairs both of which are spectacular images.

I am actually in the middle of re doing my velvet cave, part of that is replacing my 100" 2.4 gain screen with a 140" 2.35:1 acoustical transparent screen. Handling different screen ratios properly with masking and screen format is certainly on the side of projectors as is audio. A JVC in a velvet cave like mine is pretty dam amazing especially at the sizes PJs offer.

Listening with Focal Elex headphones, Topping DSD Dac, SENCUN-audio tube preamp with tone control and Modded Little Dot hybrid tube amp with Voshkod 6ZH1P-EV tubes, Dual Discrete Op-Amp SS3602, and Alps Blue Velvet volume pot.

Watching in a room ensconced in velvet.
cardoski is offline  
post #243 of 396 Old 06-29-2020, 12:10 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 Greyimporter View Post
The fact that one DLP uses sequential color filters instead of static color filters has no relevance to the conversation about pixel shifting VS native 4k.
Yes it does. Saying "1528p pixel shifted temporally to simulate a 4K (actually UHD 3840x2160 because only cinema projectors use the full DCI specification of 4096x2160) resolution). " Would be retarded AF.

Just like saying DLP is monochrome and temporally shifted.

How about when they say BT2020/P3 color space, when it can't even do 90% of REC709?

While we could nit pick, sometimes you need to simplify.

No one cares besides you and a handful of others in this thread. Even if it did have a real "4K" panel, the lens doesn't have enough resolving power to show a proper MTF anyway. No one even uses the correct term UHD, when very few displays use a true 4K.

I'll social activist for a lot of causes, but this one is really stretching it.

We should be demanding better color and contrast before worrying if the resolution is not quite 4K.

Here's a video comparing a top of the range 4K OLED to an 8K QLED. The MTF is so far behind OLED, that the resolution appears less than 4K.

The "8K" on the QLED is so bad you can't even use it for photo editing.

Debonaire is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #244 of 396 Old 06-29-2020, 12:19 PM
Member
 
Greyimporter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 67
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdht View Post
=/ I find pixel level imperfections to be quite noticeable even at resolution resolved distances. The same way screen imperfections affect pixel uniformity. Between 1080p and 4k, I would put more weight on misconvergence + chromatic aberration then I would on the actual resolution. Especially when you add in other pixel level performance including high ansi contrast, color contrast of an rgb light source, and pixel response times. Accurate is accurate.

3chip LCD/LCOS - 1080p + shifting


Single chip DLP - 0.95" 1080p




I agree with this point although I'd still maintain that it depends on the specific projector. I'm positive you could find high end LCOS and cheap Chinese 1-DLP units that would show very differently in pics.

The quality of the lens, size of the chips and convergence (on 3-chip designs) are among the most important factors in clarity and also some of the least talked about. Probably because they aren't visible on spec sheets. Motion processing too.

Anyone who uses anamorphic lenses will have some idea of how much difference high quality glass can make. When I use my cheap Prismasonic anamorphic lens, I have to readjust the focus and it makes the image noticeably less sharp from my seat. When I switch to my Panamorph lens, it's significantly clearer but still slightly softer. Go to a $10,000+ Schneider and you barely notice it's there at all.

You get the same variation in clarity switching from the cheap primary lenses you find on lower cost home theater projectors to the $5,000-$20,000 all glass lenses you find on high end projectors.

I can't go back now that I'm used to high end glass. I feel like I constantly need to change my contact lenses when I watch on cheap projectors. The soft image drives me mad.
Greyimporter is offline  
post #245 of 396 Old 06-29-2020, 12:26 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,598
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14044 Post(s)
Liked: 11709
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debonaire View Post
Yes it does. Saying "1528p pixel shifted temporally to simulate a 4K (actually UHD 3840x2160 because only cinema projectors use the full DCI specification of 4096x2160) resolution). " Would be retarded AF.

Just like saying DLP is monochrome and temporally shifted.

How about when they say BT2020/P3 color space, when it can't even do 90% of REC709?

While we could nit pick, sometimes you need to simplify.

No one cares besides you and a handful of others in this thread. Even if it did have a real "4K" panel, the lens doesn't have enough resolving power to show a proper MTF anyway. No one even uses the correct term UHD, when very few displays use a true 4K.

I'll social activist for a lot of causes, but this one is really stretching it.

We should be demanding better color and contrast before worrying if the resolution is not quite 4K.

Here's a video comparing a top of the range 4K OLED to an 8K QLED. The MTF is so far behind OLED, that the resolution appears less than 4K.

The "8K" on the QLED is so bad you can't even use it for photo editing.

https://youtu.be/D9K9oU_VTQ8?t=357
Actually all of the native 4K projectors have 4096 x 2160 resolution. It does not make sense for Sony and JVC to make two different size panels (4096 x 2160 and 3840 x 2160) for such a small market. The 4096 x 2160 is needed for Sony and JVC projectors used in screening rooms.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #246 of 396 Old 06-29-2020, 12:42 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 Mike Garrett View Post
Actually all of the native 4K projectors have 4096 x 2160 resolution. It does not make sense for Sony and JVC to make two different size panels (4096 x 2160 and 3840 x 2160) for such a small market. The 4096 x 2160 is needed for Sony and JVC projectors used in screening rooms.
I meant the resolution of the "4K" it's simulating is UHD, not even true 4K. Therefore if we nit pick, the marketing is "misleading" in it's not "real" 4K, but "fake" UHD, too! Then it's not even a true color display either, but monochrome.

How many XPR projectors with such a small market would get sold if they had to be 100% honest and say their projector is 1528p* monochrome**? People know what 1080p is, but would look "wtf is 1528p?" Will that work with my current devices? Also, why do I want monochrome?

No one getting an XPR has enough sense at all. Besides the fake resolution, they only show 60p multiples refresh. Optoma even lies about the 25ms lag on a 4k signal with the UDH30/UHD50x. The pixel shifting gets disabled in all gaming modes, so only 1080p gets displayed. If you want true fake 4k, then you're getting over 50ms which is what all the other XPRs get too.
Debonaire is offline  
post #247 of 396 Old 06-29-2020, 12:58 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 2,585
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 613 Post(s)
Liked: 462
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdht View Post
=/ I find pixel level imperfections to be quite noticeable even at resolution resolved distances. The same way screen imperfections affect pixel uniformity. Between 1080p and 4k, I would put more weight on misconvergence + chromatic aberration then I would on the actual resolution. Especially when you add in other pixel level performance including high ansi contrast, color contrast of an rgb light source, and pixel response times. Accurate is accurate.

3chip LCD/LCOS - 1080p + shifting


Single chip DLP - 0.95" 1080p



Convergence is important for projected powerpoints, excel sheets and pixel peeping.

For movies and video content a slight misconvergence is harmless it even reduces screen door effect. For uhd resolutions it's not worth the time discussing unless you like to create nose prints.

Nobody complains about the misconvergance of oleds, lcds, near field computer monitors, triniton tubes etc.

Stereo is simply Multichannel light.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #248 of 396 Old 06-29-2020, 01:22 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 18,016
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8056 Post(s)
Liked: 10641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debonaire View Post
I guess Joe Kane was right. In a completely dark room he recommends you don't go much over 10 ftL and says the normally suggested lumens is way too bright, and only works for commercial theaters with safety lights. Which is what I always thought.

I was worried worried going too low lumens wouldn't be bright enough. My CRT was only outputting under 900 lumens with a window pattern. A full white screen pattern actually shows way less lumens on my 120" screen.

Many people said the reason for such low ftL with a CRT was because they had such high contrast, and extremely dark black levels. So a dimly lit screen doesn't appear dim.

My guess then is most people aren't doing extended viewing on a projector, and maybe averaging less than 2 hours with a 12 -16 ftL suggested by SMPTE doesn't cause fatigue
.
I prefer around 20 foot lamberts for Blu-rays and brighter still for HDR. People didn't complain about fatigue until I was watching HDR at 45 foot lamberts on a 128" diagonal scope screen. Kris Deering toned that down quite a bit since then - with much better black levels. Dynamic tone mapping for HDR made a really bright picture un-necessary.
Craig Peer is online now  
post #249 of 396 Old 06-29-2020, 01:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bdht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,512
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 789 Post(s)
Liked: 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyimporter View Post
I agree with this point although I'd still maintain that it depends on the specific projector. I'm positive you could find high end LCOS and cheap Chinese 1-DLP units that would show very differently in pics. The quality of the lens, size of the chips and convergence (on 3-chip designs) are among the most important factors in clarity and also some of the least talked about. Probably because they aren't visible on spec sheets. I can't go back now that I'm used to high end glass. I feel like I constantly need to change my contact lenses when I watch on cheap projectors. The soft image drives me mad.
Absolutely. Lenses are a huge factor, and CA is worse with wide gamut LED/laser than with low gamut or uhp bulbs. Even lenses aside, it's part of the reason I leaned towards 0.95 DC3/4 vs 0.67 XPR. The overlapping pixels was not something I wanted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Derks View Post
Convergence is important for projected powerpoints, excel sheets and pixel peeping. For movies and video content a slight misconvergence is harmless it even reduces screen door effect. For uhd resolutions it's not worth the time discussing unless you like to create nose prints. Nobody complains about the misconvergance of oleds, lcds, near field computer monitors, triniton tubes etc.
Nope. Inaccurate is inaccurate. If pixel accuracy is affected, it affects overall detail. It's important with 2160p as the pixels are smaller and more impacted by misconvergence/ca/ansi contrast. If pixel uniformity wasn't important, screen material artifacts wouldn't be important either. And nobody complains about misconvergence of emissive displays because there's no misconvergence? And they did complain about CRT misconvergence...

The end result of greater perceived sharpness/detail is dimensionality. If you haven't seen it, buy an old PD/Barco FL32 so you can see what real sharpness and color performance of high end rgb dlp looks like.
bdht is online now  
post #250 of 396 Old 06-29-2020, 02:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 2,585
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 613 Post(s)
Liked: 462
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdht View Post
Absolutely. Lenses are a huge factor, and CA is worse with wide gamut LED/laser than with low gamut or uhp bulbs. Even lenses aside, it's part of the reason I leaned towards 0.95 DC3/4 vs 0.67 XPR. The overlapping pixels was not something I wanted.



Nope. Inaccurate is inaccurate. If pixel accuracy is affected, it affects overall detail. It's important with 2160p as the pixels are smaller and more impacted by misconvergence/ca/ansi contrast. If pixel uniformity wasn't important, screen material artifacts wouldn't be important either. And nobody complains about misconvergence of emissive displays because there's no misconvergence? And they did complain about CRT misconvergence...

The end result of greater perceived sharpness/detail is dimensionality. If you haven't seen it, buy an old PD/Barco FL32 so you can see what real sharpness and color performance of high end rgb dlp looks like.
It doesn't matter for film and video content, there is no need for perfect pixel overlap, it's nice to have. In this case "Inaccurate is inaccurate" is pixel peeper dogma for arguments sake.
You can't see this with video when viewing from a proper distance. (fat period with perfect convergence)

Screen material artifacts are a totally different matter. Interference and sparkles are unnatural artifacts.
CRT was the perfect tech for people with ocd. Endless fiddling to hunt for that elusive perfect convergence from a VHS source.

Stereo is simply Multichannel light.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #251 of 396 Old 06-29-2020, 02:54 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bdht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,512
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 789 Post(s)
Liked: 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Derks View Post
It doesn't matter for film and video content, there is no need for perfect pixel overlap, it's nice to have. In this case "Inaccurate is inaccurate" is pixel peeper dogma for arguments sake. You can't see this with video when viewing from a proper distance. (fat period with perfect convergence)
heh, how can I get through to you that it absolutely visibly impacts video content. We literally perceive a lack of misconvergence as superior sharpness, we perceive a lack of chromatic aberration as superior sharpness, we perceive higher ansi contrast as superior sharpness. A sharper image is a more detailed image and a more dimensional image. We even perceive pixel response time/performance of 3chip lcd as noise, inferior motion, and inferior low level detail. These are all pixel level aspects that impact video quality at resolved viewing distances.

It sounds like maybe you have a 3chip lcd bias? I can acknoledge that DLP has inferior 0-2% ADL contrast. I'm not sure what the technology denial is all about...
bdht is online now  
post #252 of 396 Old 06-29-2020, 06:16 PM
Member
 
zorkwiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I have had such fun reading this thread. I love you all

Here I am, rocking a 10-year-old Panny AE3000U 1080p projector on its 5th bulb, on an affordable EliteScreens 135" screen in a light-controlled room and wondering what all the fuss is about. I am loving everything I watch, plus any games I play down here, and I have barely spent a dime on gear in a decade, aside from the bulbs. Yes, I've seen modern OLEDs with HDR and they do look incredible, but do I feel like I'm missing out on much when I watch something on my setup? Not really. I only have 5.1 audio - does it seem to matter? Not really. While I do consider myself to be an enthusiast, (though more on the PC gaming side), and I'd gladly upgrade to an HDMI 2.1 setup with 4k/HDR if something compelling was out there for under $10k, soup-to-nuts, the fact is that those features are barely coming to affordable receivers (thanks Denon with your single HDMI Input supporting 2.1 VRR features etc.), let alone projectors, so I guess I'll keep waiting. What's another couple of years after 10? (I will admit I've been salivating a bit over the Sony and JVC 4K native options, but their gaming modes and other feature support seem lacking for TV/Movie/Gaming hybrid users)

I certainly don't want to drag a 75-80 inch flatscreen down here, no matter how good it looks, because it'll look like a tiny window on my wall rather than filling my whole setup. What's the point of a cool home theater if you can't show it off to at least 4 people at a time, preferably 6-8+, comfortably, without sacrificing audio or viewing angles? To me, the home theater is about the theater experience, not about maximizing the picture quality for one viewer. If I lived alone maybe I'd buy an OLED and some incredible headphones and call it a day. I don't.

Last edited by zorkwiz; 06-29-2020 at 06:21 PM.
zorkwiz is offline  
post #253 of 396 Old 06-30-2020, 04:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rwestley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,548
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 743 Post(s)
Liked: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorkwiz View Post
I have had such fun reading this thread. I love you all

Here I am, rocking a 10-year-old Panny AE3000U 1080p projector on its 5th bulb, on an affordable EliteScreens 135" screen in a light-controlled room and wondering what all the fuss is about. I am loving everything I watch, plus any games I play down here, and I have barely spent a dime on gear in a decade, aside from the bulbs. Yes, I've seen modern OLEDs with HDR and they do look incredible, but do I feel like I'm missing out on much when I watch something on my setup? Not really. I only have 5.1 audio - does it seem to matter? Not really. While I do consider myself to be an enthusiast, (though more on the PC gaming side), and I'd gladly upgrade to an HDMI 2.1 setup with 4k/HDR if something compelling was out there for under $10k, soup-to-nuts, the fact is that those features are barely coming to affordable receivers (thanks Denon with your single HDMI Input supporting 2.1 VRR features etc.), let alone projectors, so I guess I'll keep waiting. What's another couple of years after 10? (I will admit I've been salivating a bit over the Sony and JVC 4K native options, but their gaming modes and other feature support seem lacking for TV/Movie/Gaming hybrid users)

I certainly don't want to drag a 75-80 inch flatscreen down here, no matter how good it looks, because it'll look like a tiny window on my wall rather than filling my whole setup. What's the point of a cool home theater if you can't show it off to at least 4 people at a time, preferably 6-8+, comfortably, without sacrificing audio or viewing angles? To me, the home theater is about the theater experience, not about maximizing the picture quality for one viewer. If I lived alone maybe I'd buy an OLED and some incredible headphones and call it a day. I don't.
It seems that you are in the market for a new projector. If you can afford it consider the JVC NX7-NX5 options. You might want to consider a low priced DLP 1080P Optoma HD146X as a second projector that gets good reviews for gaming until something better comes in a few years from now. Life is short and you will be shocked how much projectors have improved in the past 10 years.
rwestley is online now  
post #254 of 396 Old 06-30-2020, 05:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 2,585
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 613 Post(s)
Liked: 462
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdht View Post
heh, how can I get through to you that it absolutely visibly impacts video content. We literally perceive a lack of misconvergence as superior sharpness, we perceive a lack of chromatic aberration as superior sharpness, we perceive higher ansi contrast as superior sharpness. A sharper image is a more detailed image and a more dimensional image. We even perceive pixel response time/performance of 3chip lcd as noise, inferior motion, and inferior low level detail. These are all pixel level aspects that impact video quality at resolved viewing distances.

It sounds like maybe you have a 3chip lcd bias? I can acknoledge that DLP has inferior 0-2% ADL contrast. I'm not sure what the technology denial is all about...
Here you are lumping ca, ansi contrast, pixel response times and even inferior motion and low level detail in with misconvergence. These are all different issues for different discussions.

I do see rainbows (temporal misconvergance!) and I'm not looking at test patterns at 1ft from screen. Well I do sometimes but I would not worry about a slight misconvergence. Half a pixel out I don't see at 16 feet view distance.
(It's actually a remarkable feat that 3 chip designs can do less than half a pixel out with a 0.7" uhd chip)
I'm not into ocd pixel peeping anymore.

Don't think there are pro level cams with single chip design out there with perfect chip alignment so I do not worry at the projector end at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo

Stereo is simply Multichannel light.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #255 of 396 Old 06-30-2020, 06:00 AM
Member
 
zorkwiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwestley View Post
It seems that you are in the market for a new projector. If you can afford it consider the JVC NX7-NX5 options. Life is short and you will be shocked how much projectors have improved in the past 10 years.
You are correct sir! I think I've come to the same conclusion, that what I'd really like is multiple years away in any affordable form, and I really would like to get 4K and HDR support soon. The JVCs look incredible for movies, but I thought that gaming response was perhaps not great. I am also considering the Epson 6050UB, but I'll take a look at some others, including the Optoma you mentioned.
zorkwiz is offline  
post #256 of 396 Old 06-30-2020, 10:02 AM
Member
 
Greyimporter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 67
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debonaire View Post
Yes it does. Saying "1528p pixel shifted temporally to simulate a 4K (actually UHD 3840x2160 because only cinema projectors use the full DCI specification of 4096x2160) resolution). " Would be retarded AF.

Just like saying DLP is monochrome and temporally shifted.

How about when they say BT2020/P3 color space, when it can't even do 90% of REC709?

While we could nit pick, sometimes you need to simplify.

No one cares besides you and a handful of others in this thread. Even if it did have a real "4K" panel, the lens doesn't have enough resolving power to show a proper MTF anyway. No one even uses the correct term UHD, when very few displays use a true 4K.

I'll social activist for a lot of causes, but this one is really stretching it.

We should be demanding better color and contrast before worrying if the resolution is not quite 4K.

Here's a video comparing a top of the range 4K OLED to an 8K QLED. The MTF is so far behind OLED, that the resolution appears less than 4K.

The "8K" on the QLED is so bad you can't even use it for photo editing.

https://youtu.be/D9K9oU_VTQ8?t=357

LCD, DLP and Lcos all use color filters or (more recently) solid state red, green and blue led or laser light sources for color. They all start with monochrome pixels.

DLPs are capable of the best color projection has to offer which is why it is used in most high end projectors. Calling any digital projection technologies monochrome is not a statement of fact. Current (pre-solid state) tech differs only in where the color filters are introduced to the light path.

The native resolution of a display is a commonly understood concept. Most people here have no issue understanding that digital projectors have a resolution + compatibility with a wider range of resolutions.

There were plenty of 720p projectors that were capable of displaying 1080i and 1080p sources. Some had excellent processing which enabled them to display a nicer looking 1080p source image than some native 1080p projectors but that's not the point. Digital projectors still only have one native resolution which is the number of pixels on the chips.

I don't consider myself to be a genius but I find it rather easy and simple to understand that there is 4k and 4k compatible. I also don't believe I am that unusual in wanting honest info about what I'm buying. It isn't up to other people to decide what's important to me or anyone else.

The fact that there are people who don't understand the difference is exactly the reason why calling a 1080p or 768p device "4k" is misleading. Some of them will assume they are upgrading when they trade their 1080p projector for a 768p one with 4k shifting. Good shifting (like good scaling) requires good processing which most cheap projectors do not have.

JVC had the right approach IMO with their 1080p native + 4K shifting marketing. Epson, Optoma and Viewsonic are deliberately sneaky.

Either way, I have no intention of campaigning or protesting. I'm just expressing an opinion because we're on a discussion forum n stuff.
Debonaire likes this.
Greyimporter is offline  
post #257 of 396 Old 06-30-2020, 10:49 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 Greyimporter View Post
LCD, DLP and Lcos all use color filters or (more recently) solid state red, green and blue led or laser light sources for color. They all start with monochrome pixels.

DLPs are capable of the best color projection has to offer which is why it is used in most high end projectors. Calling any digital projection technologies monochrome is not a statement of fact. Current (pre-solid state) tech differs only in where the color filters are introduced to the light path.

The native resolution of a display is a commonly understood concept. Most people here have no issue understanding that digital projectors have a resolution + compatibility with a wider range of resolutions.

There were plenty of 720p projectors that were capable of displaying 1080i and 1080p sources. Some had excellent processing which enabled them to display a nicer looking 1080p source image than some native 1080p projectors but that's not the point. Digital projectors still only have one native resolution which is the number of pixels on the chips.

I don't consider myself to be a genius but I find it rather easy and simple to understand that there is 4k and 4k compatible. I also don't believe I am that unusual in wanting honest info about what I'm buying. It isn't up to other people to decide what's important to me or anyone else.

The fact that there are people who don't understand the difference is exactly the reason why calling a 1080p or 768p device "4k" is misleading. Some of them will assume they are upgrading when they trade their 1080p projector for a 768p one with 4k shifting. Good shifting (like good scaling) requires good processing which most cheap projectors do not have.

JVC had the right approach IMO with their 1080p native + 4K shifting marketing. Epson, Optoma and Viewsonic are deliberately sneaky.

Either way, I have no intention of campaigning or protesting. I'm just expressing an opinion because we're on a discussion forum n stuff.
Alright. Fair enough. Although I still think the "faux" resolution with DLP is rather silly. While I do agree the LCD ones are a complete rip off. Because the LCD "4K" only internally address "3K" because they only shift in one direction you only get 3/4th of the UHD, even temporally/smeared.

No matter how you try to campaign for the LCD shifters they're not in any way ever even kind of sort of showing UHD.

While the XPR is, in a sneaky way.

Though what PMO the most is how Optoma tries to say they magically figured out a way to make the UHD30/UHD50x a 4K gaming projector, when it only shows 1080p signals, or down converts 4k signals to 1080p. Optoma definitely deserves a class action lawsuit for that BS, since that one is an outright lie with no way they can say "we kind of do." since there have been devices before like the Sony Qualia 004 which have 1080p pixels but only accept 1080i signals.

Sony was very clear on that. But you could sort of get it a 1080p signal with 1080P24sF (segmented frame). Although Sony wasn't really that altruistic, since they had a $3,000 upgrade which did let it accept a true 1080p60 and 1080p24 signal.

The reason I rant on the Optoma is I really wanted one, but I'm not if it can't do 4k for gaming. So I got myself an El Cheapo projector, which I'll maybe make some posts about once I test it out.
Debonaire is offline  
post #258 of 396 Old 06-30-2020, 11:05 AM
Senior Member
 
aoaaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Projectors are dead to people where 77-85 inches is big enough for their room. For everyone else, Projectors are very much so alive.

I have a small room, and I've now made the switch to a 77inch OLED from a 95-100 inch projection screen and an Epson 6050UB. Am I now going to bash projectors? No.

My OLED will do HDR, SDR, Gaming (due to Gsync and the level of clarity the OLED pixel structure provides), much better. In HDR I will get specular highlight brightness. In SDR and HDR I will get absolute jet blacks, incredibly important for black bar content. For the illusion of more inches in cinema scope content I can potentially crop the image in every so slightly. My viewing distance is 2.8 metres but I have furniture sliders on my sofa so will likely move it a bit closer for whenever I want to.

So whats my long term plan?

...
... *drum roll*
...
...


To buy a projector. A projector and an OLED go hand in hand just as a projector and a TV do. Projection even more than before are very important to serious home cinema enthusiasts because they offer 3D and TVs don't. I'm not going to lie. I think if one person is watching the screen, an OLED is very very very nice. But a projector for multiple people watching a screen is just that much more useful because of how big it is.

Both are excellemt, both go hand in hand. OLED provides reference quality picture quality we all dream of having on our projectors and every other display we look at (okay except for the one millionaire on this site who has a microLED samsung prototype on his mansion).
But a projector offers the home cinema experience and the extra 10-20 inches even on small projections do offer a DIFFERENT experience. not neccesariyl always better but DIFFERENT. and different is good.


In my humble experience, 77 inches is the bare minimum a TV can be and still provide a cinematic experience, but the bigger, the more cinematic.. yes.

The dangerous position projectors are in is that for those of us with small rooms who only project say 90 to 100 inches.. are they worth it compared to an 85 inch samsung/song fald TV or a 77 inch OLED... this is where projectors will lose sales eventually if they don't adjust their pricing because these people (like myself) will probably find a better experience with a flat panel.

Does that mean projectors are over priced or the flat panels are under priced? ...

hm,.. who knows...



Someone can room treat there room, buy an Epson 6050ub, buy a nice screen, mount the projector.. projector a lovely 100 inch image. maybe costing around £3k all in all.. maybe a bit more.. then somoene with no effort will buy an 85 inch sony TV which is edgelit for £2k and have no inconvienances. projectors in my opinion need to come down in price to try to compete with these panels.

Maybe i am stupid and JVCs technology is completely cutting edge and I am asking too much of them and Epson with their pricing structure...
or maybe they are making a lot of money.

Projectors also REALLY need to push and improve 3D because it is now a unique selling point. The format will come back from the dead for Avatar 2 and projectors need to be readily available to take advantage whilst TVs lag behind.

Display: 77'' CX LG OLED, Valve Index, Sony PJ + Draper React 3.0 ALR
Audio: Arendal 1723S Tower S, 1723S Centre, 1723S Surrounds, KEF Q50a, BK Monolith Plus
Powered by: RTX 2080/8086k, Denon AVR, PS4 Pro, Nintendo Switch
aoaaron is online now  
post #259 of 396 Old 06-30-2020, 11:23 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BP1Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Columbus, Oh
Posts: 1,194
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Liked: 408
Question

How big is your room? Mine is 13x16. I'm setup wide.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	20181231_231433.jpg
Views:	42
Size:	66.1 KB
ID:	2751204   Click image for larger version

Name:	20181231_231419.jpg
Views:	45
Size:	93.0 KB
ID:	2751206  

Sony XBR65x900e / STR-DN1080 / original PS4 / WOW! Ultra TV / Quantum Access Mini PC Stick w/Windows 10 / 8 x Rockville SPG88 8“ DJ PA Speakers / Dayton Audio SA1000 / Kicker 08S15L74 in a Tapped-Tapered Quarter Wave Tube (negative flare tapped horn).
BP1Fanatic is offline  
post #260 of 396 Old 06-30-2020, 11:52 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,598
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14044 Post(s)
Liked: 11709
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debonaire View Post
Alright. Fair enough. Although I still think the "faux" resolution with DLP is rather silly. While I do agree the LCD ones are a complete rip off. Because the LCD "4K" only internally address "3K" because they only shift in one direction you only get 3/4th of the UHD, even temporally/smeared.

No matter how you try to campaign for the LCD shifters they're not in any way ever even kind of sort of showing UHD.

While the XPR is, in a sneaky way.

Though what PMO the most is how Optoma tries to say they magically figured out a way to make the UHD30/UHD50x a 4K gaming projector, when it only shows 1080p signals, or down converts 4k signals to 1080p. Optoma definitely deserves a class action lawsuit for that BS, since that one is an outright lie with no way they can say "we kind of do." since there have been devices before like the Sony Qualia 004 which have 1080p pixels but only accept 1080i signals.

Sony was very clear on that. But you could sort of get it a 1080p signal with 1080P24sF (segmented frame). Although Sony wasn't really that altruistic, since they had a $3,000 upgrade which did let it accept a true 1080p60 and 1080p24 signal.

The reason I rant on the Optoma is I really wanted one, but I'm not if it can't do 4k for gaming. So I got myself an El Cheapo projector, which I'll maybe make some posts about once I test it out.
The JVC and Epson E-shift type of projectors work very similar. The DLP's have higher resolution because they are using more pixels to begin with, so when shifted, you end up with more pixels.

I agree with you that manufacturers should not try and trick customers, saying projectors are 4K, when not true 4K.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #261 of 396 Old 06-30-2020, 12:39 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,598
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14044 Post(s)
Liked: 11709
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoaaron View Post
Projectors are dead to people where 77-85 inches is big enough for their room. For everyone else, Projectors are very much so alive.

I have a small room, and I've now made the switch to a 77inch OLED from a 95-100 inch projection screen and an Epson 6050UB. Am I now going to bash projectors? No.

My OLED will do HDR, SDR, Gaming (due to Gsync and the level of clarity the OLED pixel structure provides), much better. In HDR I will get specular highlight brightness. In SDR and HDR I will get absolute jet blacks, incredibly important for black bar content. For the illusion of more inches in cinema scope content I can potentially crop the image in every so slightly. My viewing distance is 2.8 metres but I have furniture sliders on my sofa so will likely move it a bit closer for whenever I want to.

So whats my long term plan?

...
... *drum roll*
...
...


To buy a projector. A projector and an OLED go hand in hand just as a projector and a TV do. Projection even more than before are very important to serious home cinema enthusiasts because they offer 3D and TVs don't. I'm not going to lie. I think if one person is watching the screen, an OLED is very very very nice. But a projector for multiple people watching a screen is just that much more useful because of how big it is.

Both are excellemt, both go hand in hand. OLED provides reference quality picture quality we all dream of having on our projectors and every other display we look at (okay except for the one millionaire on this site who has a microLED samsung prototype on his mansion).
But a projector offers the home cinema experience and the extra 10-20 inches even on small projections do offer a DIFFERENT experience. not neccesariyl always better but DIFFERENT. and different is good.


In my humble experience, 77 inches is the bare minimum a TV can be and still provide a cinematic experience, but the bigger, the more cinematic.. yes.

The dangerous position projectors are in is that for those of us with small rooms who only project say 90 to 100 inches.. are they worth it compared to an 85 inch samsung/song fald TV or a 77 inch OLED... this is where projectors will lose sales eventually if they don't adjust their pricing because these people (like myself) will probably find a better experience with a flat panel.

Does that mean projectors are over priced or the flat panels are under priced? ...

hm,.. who knows...



Someone can room treat there room, buy an Epson 6050ub, buy a nice screen, mount the projector.. projector a lovely 100 inch image. maybe costing around £3k all in all.. maybe a bit more.. then somoene with no effort will buy an 85 inch sony TV which is edgelit for £2k and have no inconvienances. projectors in my opinion need to come down in price to try to compete with these panels.

Maybe i am stupid and JVCs technology is completely cutting edge and I am asking too much of them and Epson with their pricing structure...
or maybe they are making a lot of money.

Projectors also REALLY need to push and improve 3D because it is now a unique selling point. The format will come back from the dead for Avatar 2 and projectors need to be readily available to take advantage whilst TVs lag behind.
Your projection screen is much smaller that what most people here in the US use. I have a 9' wide scope screen that I view from the same distance you view your 77" TV from. If the choice is between a 77" TV and a 95" to 100" front projector, I could see some people picking the TV. But when the choice is between a much larger screen with front projector and a 77" TV, the TV is going to lose nearly every time.
tigerhonaker likes this.

Last edited by Mike Garrett; 06-30-2020 at 12:47 PM.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #262 of 396 Old 06-30-2020, 01:17 PM
Senior Member
 
aoaaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
Your projection screen is much smaller that what most people here in the US use. I have a 9' wide scope screen that I view from the same distance you view your 77" TV from. If the choice is between a 77" TV and a 95" to 100" front projector, I could see some people picking the TV. But when the choice is between a much larger screen with front projector and a 77" TV, the TV is going to lose nearly every time.


Yeah sadly smaller houses in the UK lead to smaller screens.
9ft wide screen? which means basically a 120'' diagonal scope screen?

I don't think the difference is THAT much from what I had for 16:9 content:
http://www.displaywars.com/120-inch-...-100-inch-16x9

Sure for films in the scope format, it'll be much better but for general content.. meh. Its not that much more impressive IMO. I'd rather have the black bars at the top and bottom so that my video games would look more epic.


But thats pretty much what I said in my post. If a 77 inch screen is acceptable, the 77 inch screen wins. If you need a bigger screen, then the projector wins.

At an appropriate viewing distance, I'd personally take an OLED for MOST of my content as its just the more versatile display but I love projectors.

When I played TLOU 2 on my projector, I constantly thought 'wow I wonder what this looks like in real HDR with specular highlight detail', 'I wonder what this scene is meant to look like'. Sadly I wasn't completely and utterly immersed in the content on a projector (this normally translates to most video games on it); I thought on many occasions 'I wonder how this looks on an OLED or reference-type display'.

However when it comes to film night with the family, the projector is far far more fun.


I guess it just depends on how much you value image fidelity too and how well certain bits of content map to projectors. For example, a very very dark film, I'll always in the back of my mind be thinking OLED OLED OLED. Brighter films, I'll dramatically lean towards the projector.. but then sometimes HDR effects make me think again.. I wonder what that looked like.

Im in the minority though. The majority of the population will not be thinking like this...

but we are an enthusiast forum..

which is why i think there is a role for both


I'm looking for a cheap 3D projector and once I move house, will likely need to look at the JVC N5 successor.
aoaaron is online now  
post #263 of 396 Old 06-30-2020, 01:56 PM
Member
 
Spike Forehand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Avondale, PA
Posts: 78
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Wow - read through this whole thread in great interest and it only made me more undecided.

Today I use a SONY VPL HW30-AES projecting to a 94" diagonal screen. It's a fully light controlled 13'W X 15'L room with a 7.1 speaker setup. My first row primary seats are about 100" from the screen (1.2X screen width). I use my HT for about 50% TV/Movies and 50% gaming (PS4 and XBOX1X).

First off, I couldn't help but chuckle at the old 1.5 to 2.0 screen width to seating distance recommendation. When I first built my HT about 12 years ago and put up a Sony HS10 projector (1366 X 768 resolution) I was told that at 1.2X screen width I was sitting way too close to the screen and that the "screen door effect" would somehow ruin my experience. I was completely tortured to the point where I almost opted for a smaller screen. Glad to this day that I didn't go there as I've loved the larger screen for all the reasons mentioned here.

But the main reason that I am undecided now is that I would very much like to upgrade this fall to 4K - especially when the new PS5 and XBOX Series X consoles come out - but also to take advantage of the emerging 4K TV/Movie content availability.

My desired budget is maybe around $4k, so my choice is between the following:

1 - Go with a UHD projector - perhaps something like the EPSON 5050 that has good ratings for input lag. Maybe use the extra budget for a new larger screen?

2 - Try to stretch the budget to go for a native 4K projector like the SONY VPL-VW295ES (been waiting and waiting for this to come down to the $3K range that I spent on the HW30 and am pretty much leaning towards giving up hope that it will happen).

3 - Stretch the budget to get a decent quality 77" OLED

4 - Go with an 85" LED like the SONY 950H or similar


Any thoughts from anyone here? Any limitations on any of the technologies that I should think about?

Thanks for any input - I'm totally on the fence with this one. I love my big screen, but am really wowed when I see the 4K flat panels. Still have not had a chance to see a UHD PJ in action though.

- Spike

-----------------------------------------------

"Blow, ye wind, like the trumpet blows. But without that noise."
Spike Forehand is offline  
post #264 of 396 Old 06-30-2020, 01:57 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,598
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14044 Post(s)
Liked: 11709
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoaaron View Post
Yeah sadly smaller houses in the UK lead to smaller screens.
9ft wide screen? which means basically a 120'' diagonal scope screen?

I don't think the difference is THAT much from what I had for 16:9 content:
http://www.displaywars.com/120-inch-...-100-inch-16x9

Sure for films in the scope format, it'll be much better but for general content.. meh. Its not that much more impressive IMO. I'd rather have the black bars at the top and bottom so that my video games would look more epic.


But thats pretty much what I said in my post. If a 77 inch screen is acceptable, the 77 inch screen wins. If you need a bigger screen, then the projector wins.

At an appropriate viewing distance, I'd personally take an OLED for MOST of my content as its just the more versatile display but I love projectors.

When I played TLOU 2 on my projector, I constantly thought 'wow I wonder what this looks like in real HDR with specular highlight detail', 'I wonder what this scene is meant to look like'. Sadly I wasn't completely and utterly immersed in the content on a projector (this normally translates to most video games on it); I thought on many occasions 'I wonder how this looks on an OLED or reference-type display'.

However when it comes to film night with the family, the projector is far far more fun.


I guess it just depends on how much you value image fidelity too and how well certain bits of content map to projectors. For example, a very very dark film, I'll always in the back of my mind be thinking OLED OLED OLED. Brighter films, I'll dramatically lean towards the projector.. but then sometimes HDR effects make me think again.. I wonder what that looked like.

Im in the minority though. The majority of the population will not be thinking like this...

but we are an enthusiast forum..

which is why i think there is a role for both


I'm looking for a cheap 3D projector and once I move house, will likely need to look at the JVC N5 successor.
Except, I do not game. I watch movies and most of them are scope. I do have a 75" TV and a 127" diagonal 16:9 screen in my other room. But for serious movie watching, I watch on my 9' wide (soon to be 110" wide) scope screen. For scope movies my 110" wide screen will be 2.7 times larger than your TV and viewed at 9'.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #265 of 396 Old 06-30-2020, 02:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Archibald1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 4,831
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2900 Post(s)
Liked: 1987
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoaaron View Post
Yeah sadly smaller houses in the UK lead to smaller screens.
9ft wide screen? which means basically a 120'' diagonal scope screen?

I don't think the difference is THAT much from what I had for 16:9 content:
http://www.displaywars.com/120-inch-...-100-inch-16x9

Sure for films in the scope format, it'll be much better but for general content.. meh. Its not that much more impressive IMO. I'd rather have the black bars at the top and bottom so that my video games would look more epic.


But thats pretty much what I said in my post. If a 77 inch screen is acceptable, the 77 inch screen wins. If you need a bigger screen, then the projector wins.

At an appropriate viewing distance, I'd personally take an OLED for MOST of my content as its just the more versatile display but I love projectors.

When I played TLOU 2 on my projector, I constantly thought 'wow I wonder what this looks like in real HDR with specular highlight detail', 'I wonder what this scene is meant to look like'. Sadly I wasn't completely and utterly immersed in the content on a projector (this normally translates to most video games on it); I thought on many occasions 'I wonder how this looks on an OLED or reference-type display'.

However when it comes to film night with the family, the projector is far far more fun.


I guess it just depends on how much you value image fidelity too and how well certain bits of content map to projectors. For example, a very very dark film, I'll always in the back of my mind be thinking OLED OLED OLED. Brighter films, I'll dramatically lean towards the projector.. but then sometimes HDR effects make me think again.. I wonder what that looked like.

Im in the minority though. The majority of the population will not be thinking like this...

but we are an enthusiast forum..

which is why i think there is a role for both


I'm looking for a cheap 3D projector and once I move house, will likely need to look at the JVC N5 successor.
Unless they go roll able, screens can only get so big before they will not fit through normal doorways, not to mention their weight and unwieldy form.

A projector and a screen can get in almost anywhere and present an image vastly larger than any TV most can afford for much lower cost.

“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. It matters that you don’t just give up." Stephen Hawking.
"Be water my friend." Bruce Lee.
Archibald1 is offline  
post #266 of 396 Old 06-30-2020, 02:07 PM
Member
 
Dark Matter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by wookiegr View Post
When I can buy a 165" flat panel TV for $3000 I still won't be able to fit in through my door or down the stairs so Projector it is then.
And that is the primary issue--you can't fit a huge flat panel through the doorways or hallways of mere mortals' homes. Until there are consumer-level foldable/rollable displays that can be hung on a wall, projectors will always be king for home theater. Even though I enjoy my miniscule 55" 4K tv for movies and games as well, it's just not the same as my 120" screen, despite not having 4K HDR. But who cares? It's a movie theater experience without the annoying people on their phones, sticky floors, and seat kickers.
skylarlove1999 and Archibald1 like this.
Dark Matter is offline  
post #267 of 396 Old 06-30-2020, 02:18 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Michigan
Posts: 418
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
Liked: 385
Does anyone really believe that were it available and reasonably priced, the majority of OLED owners wouldn’t choose a 120” model?

Just this week, I set up my moth balled 65” OLED as a dedicated gaming system while my young adult grandchildren are visiting for 10 days. They have the ability to sit as close as they want, so the relative seating distance is addressed.

Result? They’re begging me to let them play PS4 on the 120” projector screen.
Karl Maga is offline  
post #268 of 396 Old 06-30-2020, 02:44 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 2,585
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 613 Post(s)
Liked: 462
Don't think I can stand the lumens from a 120" 1000nits oled.

Without a projector you have a tv room, not a home cinema.

Stereo is simply Multichannel light.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #269 of 396 Old 06-30-2020, 02:46 PM
Senior Member
 
aoaaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
Except, I do not game. I watch movies and most of them are scope. I do have a 75" TV and a 127" diagonal 16:9 screen in my other room. But for serious movie watching, I watch on my 9' wide (soon to be 110" wide) scope screen. For scope movies my 110" wide screen will be 2.7 times larger than your TV and viewed at 9'.


hahah you are trying to argue with the wrong person as I have a projector and an OLED (and a FALD TV).

I still have my 100 inch 16:9 projector screen

As I said Mike, its not a competition. Both devices have a clear role to play. I enjoy both projection and OLEDs and own both.

For fun movie watching, I will watch on a projector

For serious movie watching, I will still turn to an OLED because if gives reference quality blacks, specular highlight detail, true HDR performance, pixel perfect quality. However, the seating has to be adjusted to be closer to the screen hahaha.



Sadly HDR for me has ruined projection. SDR I really like projectors but HDR, I feel like I am missing out on a lot. When I had my Epson 6050UB, I loved it but I always knew I was getting a very subpar gimped HDR experience, even in films. HDR adds another dimension lost in projection, such as in the show Kingdom when they have bright lamps on a pitch black background or stars on a night sky which look... very meh on a projector.

Maybe JVC N9 in a treated pitch black room could make it look nicer..


I will do a thorough review of my 77'' OLED vs Projector once my home theater room is properly setup as I am quite blunt with technology and will always try to remove any bias.

Display: 77'' CX LG OLED, Valve Index, Sony PJ + Draper React 3.0 ALR
Audio: Arendal 1723S Tower S, 1723S Centre, 1723S Surrounds, KEF Q50a, BK Monolith Plus
Powered by: RTX 2080/8086k, Denon AVR, PS4 Pro, Nintendo Switch
aoaaron is online now  
post #270 of 396 Old 06-30-2020, 02:49 PM
Senior Member
 
aoaaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archibald1 View Post
Unless they go roll able, screens can only get so big before they will not fit through normal doorways, not to mention their weight and unwieldy form.

A projector and a screen can get in almost anywhere and present an image vastly larger than any TV most can afford for much lower cost.


Hahaha very good point

I am hoping that if I ever do have a image/screen so big that it cannot fit through the door, the house size will match too though
Dark Matter and Archibald1 like this.

Display: 77'' CX LG OLED, Valve Index, Sony PJ + Draper React 3.0 ALR
Audio: Arendal 1723S Tower S, 1723S Centre, 1723S Surrounds, KEF Q50a, BK Monolith Plus
Powered by: RTX 2080/8086k, Denon AVR, PS4 Pro, Nintendo Switch
aoaaron 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