AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm interested in getting the new Benq6200, but I have a question. It's in 4:3 format, so if I show a DVD that is 16:9, it will be wasting a whole lot of its pixels by making black bars above and below the screen? Would the resolution of DVDs on the Infocus 4805 (native 16:9) be better on DVDs because it would have all its pixels actually being used rather than just projecting black? If so, a 4:3 projector sucks! Please help.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
476 Posts
it would still have a higher resolution then the infocus 4805 even with the wasted pixels (its not wxga). You could also throw in a panamorph then you wouldnt waste the pixels. Im sure there are a ton of threads like this already. You might want to go to projectorcentral.com and read the article they have over there.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,755 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by columbustitan
If I show a DVD that is 16:9, it will be wasting a whole lot of its pixels by making black bars above and below the screen? Would the resolution of DVDs on the Infocus 4805 (native 16:9) be better on DVDs because it would have all its pixels actually being used rather than just projecting black? If so, a 4:3 projector sucks!
And depending on whether or not the dark gray that is representing black bothers you, a 16:9 PJ or a Panamorph lens (it does the anamorphic squish) w/ a 4:3 PJ would be a good idea.

velvetpoet is right: there are many threads addressing this concern. Just page through the threads that have been posted in the last week or so and you'll find lots of info.

Other considerations as to PJ choice will occur as you search.


The 4805 looks like something worth waiting to see, to me. But, I already have the X1 and it would require a lot of convincing to get my wife to want to change. The X1 shoots a beautiful image. When Infocus has a WXGA with the circuitry abilities of the X1 for under 2K I will be one of the first in line.

The 4:3 format isn't a problem for me - but my solution is another story.


Good luck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,765 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by velvetpoet
it would still have a higher resolution then the infocus 4805 even with the wasted pixels (its not wxga). You could also throw in a panamorph then you wouldnt waste the pixels. Im sure there are a ton of threads like this already. You might want to go to projectorcentral.com and read the article they have over there.
I don't know about the Benq6100, but my Sharp A10X "intelligently" processes the signal - at least for 16*9 HD material sent 540p/1080i/720p and reverts to a reduce vertical pixel rate with no ability to get a "full" pixel 4*3 mode that can be squezed back to 16*9. So if you are choosing a projector with anamorphic squeeze in mind (to get extra sharpness out of an XGA projector in widescreen) make sure the projector supports full mode.


Perhaps the above doesn't apply to 480i widescreen input that you get from a dvd; but how much extra sharpness can you expect to get from scaling up and then squeezing back down?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,765 Posts
I normally use an HTPC but have hooked up my dvd player on several occasions. Truthfully I prefer the HTPC for all its capabilities; probably a big factor is that the DVD player is non-progressive. I'm pretty confident that a good progressive DVD player with the Sharp's component settings calibrated properly would be close or identical quality to the HTPC software DVD players.


Regarding the Sharp, I am not in a great position to recommend it one way or the other as it is the only projector I have ever had. There's another thread comparing the A10x and the X1. There are some strong opinions which may come down to comparing apples and oranges. To tell the truth I was never interested in an SVGA projector in any event because I wanted higher resolution for computer applications and HDTV display ( I just finished watching NC beat Connecticut on the big screen in a small window as I was composing this).


So I needed at least an XGA resolution projector in any event and I can't really comment on the Sharp versus others except that I know it was relatively lower cost. I understand it is bright versus other low end projectors; but it really can't compare favorably in picture quality versus my 36" RCA direct view, certainly not during the daytime in my family room, - except for picture size which is why I got it being tired of a small letter box.


Regarding this last point which is the subject of the thread; there's one thing I definitely don't like about the Sharp; and that's its automatic vertical downrezing to letterbox HDTV resolutions.


If I want to get extra resolution and brightness approaching the 720p projectors I can go the route of using an anamorphic lense and outputting HDTV in full mode from OTA sources using my MyHD card (tried it and it works in full @ native resolution of projector).


But I can't do the same with HD input from COMCAST STB where I am limited to outputting 1080i/720p with the automatic letterboxing by the Sharp. In this case their advertised "Intelligent" automatic resolution feature is really dumb in not letting it be defeated and go full-screen.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top