Originally Posted by AV_Integrated
That looks really good, but it clearly isn't for everyone.
I think a big issue is the focus and I'm not sure how much work has to go into getting that setup right. That's well beyond what most people are willing to go through to get an image that looks good.
The idea that you can't do this with lamp based models is off, for sure, as the Epson 3700 will produce similar brightness and can do 200 inches quite well and while it does need a new lamp every few thousands hours or so, it's cost is $100. So, $1,300 for the projector and a couple hundred in lamps to get 10,000+ hours of use with a sharp image from corner to corner, lens shift, lots of zoom range, etc.
I can't imaging that people are lining up to drop $700+ per projector to get an image that ends up soft in the corners and requires some serious setup effort.
But, it does look really good the way you have it setup and there is a lot of pop to that image by the photos.
You missed the point entirely. I am constantly reading academic speculation about the amount of light needed to provide a certain level of brightness in a given situation. This combo exceeds the speculation you provided about the Epson at the specified number of hours.
Your imagination aside, the same level of softness exists in projectors. I highlighted it to make a point. In older reviews the showed the smallest clear font viewed. The softness of which I spoke referred to that standard.
I maintain that the loss of output on the Epson 3700 at 3300 hours will NOT allow it to provide a 200 inch image at that level of brightness or saturation.
The fundamental flaw of so many posts on this site is that quoting lumens fail to account for the rapid rate of decline in output. Human perception compensates to a great degree for that loss but it is still substantial. The tests provided by many reviews (if not all) only deal with the initial (maximum) output. It is commonly accepted that the output will decline by a quarter at 500 hours.
Focusing takes seconds and then its done. Once I realized that the focusing system used tandem elements I was able to find a focal point that balances the screen. More importantly, it is simply not an issue while watching any video.
As for setup, it takes a few minutes more than setting up one projector. And by a few, I mean less than five minutes. It requires no complex analysis or reasoning skills. It process is infinitely simpler than installing a screen and provides a far greater return on time and money.
It was my purchase of a pair of Epsons that caused me to critically analyze the lumen hype of lamp based projectors. My second projector lost a substantial amount of output after a couple hundred hours.
Sadly, a lot of people will read your speculation without any proof and accept it.
I was prompted to post because I recently read a review about a (lamp based) projector that interested me. In the review, the poster showed a photo of the new projector and the output of his 4000 lumen projector as proof of how superior the new projector was. He bought the hype!
Please provide me some proof that the rated output of lamp based projectors maintains its output for any specified period of time i.e. a 2000 lumen lamp provides that output for how much of its rated life. Because as I read it (and experienced it) the output could drop within a couple hundred hour by a quarter to half and still be within acceptable industry standards.
I am speculating that virturally nobody measures the output of their lamp in the first couple hundred hours and human perception allows that loss to be ignored. It was only because I had a second projector as a standard that I became aware of the issue.
Oh, lets not forget the heat, noise, projector size, and the acceptable "exploding" lamp" issues.