AVS Forum banner

81 - 100 of 324 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,375 Posts
That's a very nice comparison video, and I think the difference in sharpness between both is pretty obvious in this video too.

Just a question about your needs:
1. What kind of screen size are you lighting up?
2. What kind of sources are you using? TV? 1080p blurays? Games?

In my opinion, the Sony is superior in picture quality because it's just a much sharper projector. It has a best in class upscaler making your TV/1080p material look amazing that JVC does not have, and true native 4k materials are that much more impressive (imo a big difference as you can see in the comparison video).

However, there are on this forum, that prefer the black level of the JVC, which is superior. It's what you prefer out of your projector.

Also, the additional arguements of high brightness and reduced cost for the x5900 are good ones. You should see if you need the high brightness and if you're OK with paying the extra.

Sitting at 10 feet, on a 114 inches screen, in a dark room painted dark blue.
My only source will be a Blu-ray player, no download or gaming for this old Cat.


In a few spot, I did notice that the Sony was a little bit sharper, but on most scene, the JVC was my preference.
But must admit than I am more, an audio guy than video, therefore, I might not notice what some other do.


Ray
If you don't notice the sharpness difference too much, you should definitely get the JVC. The x5900 is a lot of bang for your buck. Even for someone like me who prefers the Sony image it was a difficult choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darthray

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,375 Posts
There are differences in detail regardless, yes. However, the highlight detail of the JVC is compromised by the recording, it would look better in person. It's overexposed. Look at the clouds on the Earth shot you were just talking about.

I'm not sure what you are arguing with me about.
Funny thing is, he is also arguing with the guy that made the video, since he says it is hard to tell the difference. A video is not going to show the same thing as what is actually seen in person.
That's exactly what I pointed out myself Mike. For me it's a night and day difference, and I'm also wondering why it's so obvious for me, it has nothing to do with the recorded video however, as relative performance is just as valid is absolute.

It might be my reference standard. I'm used to the picture clear native 4k resolution. So everything less tends to stand out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,375 Posts
Scale your surface screen to 100" diagonal and see how many PPI there are then. PPI is meaningless as far as fixed resolutions go on panels over a certain size, as an inch is absolute and unchanging but the bigger the panel the bigger the pixels and therefore the fewer per inch.
And that's what makes this style of measurement relevant, because the less pixels per inch means the less accurate the image will be and the easier it will be for me to see those pixels. We've been dealing with this issue with computer monitors since the 80s, it's always been the better the PPI the better the PQ will be in terms of resolution. I literally cannot see any pixels no matter how close I get to my computer screen, but you can with any projector in existence.
Yes but a computer screen is something you sit extremely close to. However, TVs and projectors are things you use while sitting in a couch.

Your argument would only hold ground if you would use the apple to apple comparison and say that you want to use your projector as a computer screen. But why exactly would you do that? This is exactly why I said your argument is silly, we don't measure ppi because we're never going to be so close to the screen that the inch actually matters.

You use a projector from your couch, just like a TV. And if you use a projector you'll have more real estate to make use of the 4k resolution AT THE SAME DISTANCE as what you're seated from when using a TV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,375 Posts
Gaming is massive, but projectors are far from the ideal screens to use by any real gamers(even amateur ones). Most people are using phones or desktop PCs with OLED or gaming monitors. Projectors are strictly for re-enacting the traditional theater experience at home. Nothing more, nothing less.
I'll pick up the rest of your arguments later when I'm not using my phone. But this response is again extremely silly. 80% of the usage my projector gets is gaming. And for me the projector is the absolute ideal way of gaming, as games make use of the native 4k resolution far more than any video does, and the real estate a projected screen actually makes you use that 4k resolution from the couch.

You're still with the assumption that I don't own an OLED (for the kids, and yes with panel issues that massively annoy me) or an ultra wide 144hz screen for my work.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,471 Posts
If PPI is silly then lumens and contrast levels to use projectors as some kind of PQ benchmark is even more ridiculous.

Bringing your projector closer to the screen will make it brighter, but it will make it totally useless because nobody watches a concentrated area that's so bright like that in real life unless they want to be blind.



Like I said, it's not the brightness that I love as TVs don't represent that (they are not made to operate in total darkness). I love the perfect balance of colors and black levels that I can see along with everything else in the room and around me, I love the life-like PQ appeal from TVs which projectors cannot match and I love the accuracy that each diodes operate to produce their own lighting rather than rely on lighting projected from several metres away.

And you are right about superb brightness which projectors do need to operate to be effective from that distance, making it less accurate. Thanks for proving my point.



It doesn't matter what projector you show me it will still suffer terribly when placed in the same daylit room as a TV. The TV will have superior contrast and black levels with the consistency of its brightness to maintain an excellent presentation, the projector won't. The only way the projector can operate is in complete darkness, which few people would use a TV that way anyway. Would you wear glasses to black out everything outside of your lenses? Of course not. Brightness from a projector screen amplified by its dark surrounding isn't a measure of PQ at all, it's just perceived PQ because the eyes have to adjust so much to take in so much concentrated lighting from one area. That's not how we see the world around us.



Saw that 7 years ago. Times have changed and technology has improved. OLED is the defacto screen for millions of devices including TVs, monitors, tablets and mobile phones. This prove that the technology is being invested heavily and there's a good bet that it will improve every year.



Well, projectors are a compromise to begin with, and so is my living room while trying to set up one. It's not difference maker that makes people want to rush out to replace their TV sets with projectors now. The wealthy like NBA players don't go for a SONY VPL-VZ1000 or a JVC DLA-X990R projector, they go for the biggest and most expensive TV they can find that they can turn on and play. Then they replace it with something bigger. They are not interested in waiting for something to warm up and cool down after using.



You have to compare a projected image with another projected image in the same room, then you can see the difference, but you still need to sit further away from the screen. Most people don't have large or deep rooms to support that kind of viewing distance. With 4K and 8K TVs you don't need to sit so far as you can still stay in the same sofa that you used for all the previously smaller TVs that you once had, and enjoy the better resolution (no details loss here).



Not really. I reviewed all these projectors one by one in one room that was next to the room with the 4K OLED and 8K TVs, and the differences between the two group was staggering. It's very easy to come to that conclusion when you have access to both technologies.



Gaming is massive, but projectors are far from the ideal screens to use by any real gamers(even amateur ones). Most people are using phones or desktop PCs with OLED or gaming monitors. Projectors are strictly for re-enacting the traditional theater experience at home. Nothing more, nothing less.
I use my projector during the day with the drapes open. It shows a better image than any TV I've had in the same room during the daytime with less glare thanks to a great ambient light rejecting screen. Outside of an OLED TV, the contrast of a LCOS projector is much better than any of the TV's you will find in brick-and-mortar stores today.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,903 Posts
And that's what makes this style of measurement relevant, because the less pixels per inch means the less accurate the image will be and the easier it will be for me to see those pixels. We've been dealing with this issue with computer monitors since the 80s, it's always been the better the PPI the better the PQ will be in terms of resolution. I literally cannot see any pixels no matter how close I get to my computer screen, but you can with any projector in existence.
Scale your surface screen up so you can watch it from 12 feet plus away and you will have less resolution than a 4K screen and bigger pixels.
Conversely a 4K res screen at the size of your surface screen will have more PPI.

Higher resolution allows larger screens with no loss of detail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,903 Posts
I use my projector during the day with the drapes open. It shows a better image than any TV I've had in the same room during the daytime with less glare thanks to a great ambient light rejecting screen. Outside of an OLED TV, the contrast of a LCOS projector is much better than any of the TV's you will find in brick-and-mortar stores today.
Holy moly! look at the size of those speakers! :D:cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,745 Posts
I don't understand why people would try to compare a relatively small TV size with a larger than normal projector size?85" TVs are now in existence and 100" is the norm for projector sizes, both of which would fit in a living room that are not all that large let alone the few that would be willing to darken the room just for a projector.

As for your second point regarding resolution and PPI, fortunately they do matter. Nobody is going back to the 640x480 days and nobody wants to see screen-door effect and pixelated images either, certainly not at 120". In order for anyone to start to appreciate screens over 100" at 1080p or 4K, they would have to sit further back compared to someone who can sit much closer with a smaller screen at the same resolution. The issue here is the distance that one has to create in order to fully appreciate picture quality without letting the size of the screen enlarge the screen-door effect and pixelation too much, but the further one has to sit the more inconvenient it becomes.
The number of my customers that have purchased 100" or smaller screens in the last five years, is probably 1 or 2 percent. So 100" is not the norm for projector users, here in the US, it is much larger. But the difference in size between an 85" and a 100" screen is massive. The 100" screen is 37% larger, so going to an 85" TV for pretty much any projector user would be giving up a lot, in image size.

In my dedicated room, I sit 9' away from a 9' wide scope screen. I do not see any pixels from that distance. In my family room, I sit 10' from a 127" 16:9 screen. Still no problem with seeing pixels. Both rooms use an LCOS projector. When comparing the immersion experience between my 10' viewing distance with my 127" screen and the 85" TV, you would need to view the 85" TV from 4'-7". Going to get kind of crowded around that TV with four people sitting that close. :)

TV's these days, throw very nice images, but then, so do projectors. But a TV is giving up the one thing that most are not willing to give up and that is immersion, due to size of the image. Your 85" TV example is a postage stamp for most projector owners. Yes, we have to darken the room, but I would much rather do that than give up the image size.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,745 Posts
Holy moly! look at the size of those speakers! :D:cool:
You can have absolutely huge speakers and people not even know it. Each of my three LCR's are a little over 6' tall. But they are all hidden behind an AT screen and speaker grill cloth below the screen.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,704 Posts
The number of my customers that have purchased 100" or smaller screens in the last five years, is probably 1 or 2 percent. So 100" is not the norm for projector users, here in the US, it is much larger. But the difference in size between an 85" and a 100" screen is massive. The 100" screen is 37% larger, so going to an 85" TV for pretty much any projector user would be giving up a lot, in image size.

In my dedicated room, I sit 9' away from a 9' wide scope screen. I do not see any pixels from that distance. In my family room, I sit 10' from a 127" 16:9 screen. Still no problem with seeing pixels. Both rooms use an LCOS projector. When comparing the immersion experience between my 10' viewing distance with my 127" screen and the 85" TV, you would need to view the 85" TV from 4'-7". Going to get kind of crowded around that TV with four people sitting that close. :)

TV's these days, throw very nice images, but then, so do projectors. But a TV is giving up the one thing that most are not willing to give up and that is immersion, due to size of the image. Your 85" TV example is a postage stamp for most projector owners. Yes, we have to darken the room, but I would much rather do that than give up the image size.
And just the cinema experience in general which includes no lights in the room.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,459 Posts
Another thing too...

A LCoS based projector paired with a good screen in a sufficiently black room throws a very organic, film-like image. For example, f I am watching a well mastered BD or UHD BD from a 35mm source, it looks like an actual film print. But even digitally filmed movies can look smoother. You can never capture this 'look' on a flat panel even on an OLED. I think it has to do with the advanced LCoS technology and not watching an image through glass which always looks a little more digital by comparison with its greater brightness. What I am getting at is, there is the look of TV and then there is the look of projection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,084 Posts
You can have absolutely huge speakers and people not even know it. Each of my three LCR's are a little over 6' tall. But they are all hidden behind an AT screen and speaker grill cloth below the screen.
That's a nice looking scope screen, Mike. What screen is it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,745 Posts
That's a nice looking scope screen, Mike. What screen is it?
The frame is curved and made by Prismasonic. The fabric is Screen Acoustics V6. The fabric is a three ply product bonded together. Surface layer, reflective layer and a black backing, all bonded together. I love this screen. it is very smooth for an AT screen. With HDR on my old screen, I was getting some shimmer on bright scenes when showing snow or white clouds. Not a problem with this screen. Have owned several woven AT screens. This is by far my favorite. Several people have installed this material in their existing frames.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/110-diy-screen-section/2947720-v6-material-silver-ticket-frame.html
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
No, you are completely wrong with this point of view. Having better resolution allows you to sit closer and not lose detail, not farther away, as you seem to indicate. So 4k allows you to sit 6 -10 feet from a 100"" screen without seeing any loss in detail. However 4K is over kill for 50" or smaller unless you plan to sit 3 - 4 feet from the screen.
And you're wrong in your interpretation of this discussion, in fact all your ideas are all over the place. Having better resolution is supposed to let you sit closer, but with projectors projecting an image of 100" and over you still need to sit a lot further than TVs to fully appreciate them and overcome their poor PPI. That is really the whole debate considering the inconvenience of having to sit so far back. Hence the advantages of the "smaller" TVs, sitting closer and enjoying the higher resolutions. You simply cannot sit closer for projectors without noticing all their usual drawbacks with large screens/poor PPI etc.

Furthermore, we've enjoyed widespread 4K gaming since 2014 on screens smaller than 50" sitting anywhere from 30cm to 60cm away. So you are wrong to say that 4K is an overkill at these sizes from these distance. I probably shouldn't tell you about the 16K gaming system that some people have developed already, and they weren't sitting more than a metre away either.

There is absolutely no benefit to having a 50" or an 85" TV with 8k resolution over 4K resolution if you plan to sit back farther than 8 - 10'.
At those sizes, you don't have to sit further to enjoy those resolutions and you're not meant to, that's the benefit of having the smaller screens developed for the living room and not for theaters. Projectors benefit from using bigger screens as long as the resolutions support those sizes, so an 8K or 10K 100" screen will certainly look better than a 4K one, but there isn't a consumer level projector that can do that because projector technology just isn't as developed.

No human eyes are good enough to see any additional detail at that distance. You would need to sit at about 4' - 8' back from an 85" TV to see any added detail going to 8k from 4K.
There is a huge difference between 8K, 4K and 1080p:

- 8K is 16 times the resolution of 1080p

- 8K is 4 times the resolution of 4K

- Total pixels: 4K Ultra HD has 8 million pixels, while 8K has 33 million pixels

- Frame rate: 4K Ultra HD has a frame rate of 50 fps or 60 fps, while 8K Ultra HD has 120 fps

- Standard viewing distance: viewing distance of 4K Ultra HD is 3 x screen height, while that of 4K Ultra HD is 0.75

- Standard viewing angle: viewing angle of 4K Ultra HD is 60°, but viewing angle of 8K Ultra HD is 100°

https://www.winxdvd.com/answers/4k-vs-8k.htm

So you are wrong to think that people can't tell the difference in picture quality comparing a resolution that's 4 times worst than the other as is the case when comparing 480p (852x480) and 1080p (1920x1080). Was 1080p a significant jump from 720p? It's only 2.25 times the resolution, so it doesn't sound as great as a jump from 480p to 1080p, but it was significant enough for most people to jump ship to 1080p TVs and projectors. Same situation with 1080p to 4K and pretty soon 4k to 8k.

The whole point of having a larger screen was to showcase higher resolutions, which is why TVs lead this trend and not projectors. This is why Sony released the first 4K TV at 84" back in 2012, not 50". This is why LG release their first 4K OLED TV at 77" back in 2014 for $11k, not 50".


You seem to think that there is no upper end to resolution for human eyes. of course there was improvement going from 640 to 1080. But I would bet, that you could poll 100 people watching a 50" LED TV and 95 of them couldn't see a difference going from 1080p to 4K resolution when viewing from a distance greater than 8'.
Where did I say that there was no upper end to resolution for human eyes? No screen can match the capabilities of the human eye as we're capable of seeing far beyond 8k, actually over 500 megapixels (MP). Remember, 4K is just 8MP while 8K is 33MP.

We all can see and appreciate the differences in resolution (and quality) of an iphone and iphone X while viewing both from the same distances, so there's no doubt that we notice the benefits of enjoying the higher resolutions:



Also you are completely wrong with throwing out native contrast as a measuring stick. LED TVs have inherently poor contrast. It is not an emissive display as you suggest. The only reason you see brightness is due to an LED backlight. This shines through an lcd grid which filters the light into pixels of color. So you cannot have areas of pure black on the screen at the same time as pure white unless the panel is broken up into many backlights that cover discrete areas of the screen. Currently even the best LED TVs like the Sony Z9D only have about 1000 discrete zones of backlighting. Talk about poor resolution. This is even worse than the 640x480 pixel resolution you hated for a backlighting contrast grid. The cost of an 100" Z9D is currently around $60,000. You can buy a Sony 4K or JVC e-shift for under $5000 that will easily beat the contrast and match the resolution of a Z9D 100" TV.
Contrast numbers on projectors is literally garbage when black levels are nowhere near what TVs can achieve. This is common knowledge. Plus,

The Sony VW385ES isn’t identical (to the Epson), but I’d say that it is every bit as good, doing better on some very dark scenes, and not so good on others, but the overall experience is never “mediocre” black level performance. Mediocre is a pretty good way of describing pretty much every 4K UHD DLP projector we’ve reviewed to date.
And (same guy):

Let me put it this way: I have yet to see a 4K UHD projector, whether $1,500, or $8,995 ($1,000 more than this Sony), that even meets my minimum definition of ultra high contrast, and when you only look at the $5K and under 4K DLPs, from an acceptable black level performance standpoint, they all earn a “fail.”
https://www.projectorreviews.com/sony/sony-vpl-vw385es-true-4k-home-theater-projector-review-picture-quality-2/#blacklevelperformance

One doesn't even need to find proof of this, it's a known fact that projectors cannot produce accurate images reliably due to their incredibly picky nature fighting against external challenges (ie. room lighting) that TVs don't suffer from. You can throw all the numbers at people to throw them off, but the eye test don't lie, you know when something looks so much better than the other particularly when you can compared them next to each other. The notion that projector picture quality is better than TV is absolutely ridiculous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
247 Posts
And you're wrong in your interpretation of this discussion, in fact all your ideas are all over the place. Having better resolution is supposed to let you sit closer, but with projectors projecting an image of 100" and over you still need to sit a lot further than TVs to fully appreciate them and overcome their poor PPI. That is really the whole debate considering the inconvenience of having to sit so far back. Hence the advantages of the "smaller" TVs, sitting closer and enjoying the higher resolutions. You simply cannot sit closer for projectors without noticing all their usual drawbacks with large screens/poor PPI etc.

Furthermore, we've enjoyed widespread 4K gaming since 2014 on screens smaller than 50" sitting anywhere from 30cm to 60cm away. So you are wrong to say that 4K is an overkill at these sizes from these distance. I probably shouldn't tell you about the 16K gaming system that some people have developed already, and they weren't sitting more than a metre away either.



At those sizes, you don't have to sit further to enjoy those resolutions and you're not meant to, that's the benefit of having the smaller screens developed for the living room and not for theaters. Projectors benefit from using bigger screens as long as the resolutions support those sizes, so an 8K or 10K 100" screen will certainly look better than a 4K one, but there isn't a consumer level projector that can do that because projector technology just isn't as developed.



There is a huge difference between 8K, 4K and 1080p:

- 8K is 16 times the resolution of 1080p

- 8K is 4 times the resolution of 4K

- Total pixels: 4K Ultra HD has 8 million pixels, while 8K has 33 million pixels

- Frame rate: 4K Ultra HD has a frame rate of 50 fps or 60 fps, while 8K Ultra HD has 120 fps

- Standard viewing distance: viewing distance of 4K Ultra HD is 3 x screen height, while that of 4K Ultra HD is 0.75

- Standard viewing angle: viewing angle of 4K Ultra HD is 60°, but viewing angle of 8K Ultra HD is 100°

https://www.winxdvd.com/answers/4k-vs-8k.htm

So you are wrong to think that people can't tell the difference in picture quality comparing a resolution that's 4 times worst than the other as is the case when comparing 480p (852x480) and 1080p (1920x1080). Was 1080p a significant jump from 720p? It's only 2.25 times the resolution, so it doesn't sound as great as a jump from 480p to 1080p, but it was significant enough for most people to jump ship to 1080p TVs and projectors. Same situation with 1080p to 4K and pretty soon 4k to 8k.

The whole point of having a larger screen was to showcase higher resolutions, which is why TVs lead this trend and not projectors. This is why Sony released the first 4K TV at 84" back in 2012, not 50". This is why LG release their first 4K OLED TV at 77" back in 2014 for $11k, not 50".




Where did I say that there was no upper end to resolution for human eyes? No screen can match the capabilities of the human eye as we're capable of seeing far beyond 8k, actually over 500 megapixels (MP). Remember, 4K is just 8MP while 8K is 33MP.

We all can see and appreciate the differences in resolution (and quality) of an iphone and iphone X while viewing both from the same distances, so there's no doubt that we notice the benefits of enjoying the higher resolutions:





Contrast numbers on projectors is literally garbage when black levels are nowhere near what TVs can achieve. This is common knowledge. Plus,



And (same guy):



https://www.projectorreviews.com/sony/sony-vpl-vw385es-true-4k-home-theater-projector-review-picture-quality-2/#blacklevelperformance

One doesn't even need to find proof of this, it's a known fact that projectors cannot produce accurate images reliably due to their incredibly picky nature fighting against external challenges (ie. room lighting) that TVs don't suffer from. You can throw all the numbers at people to throw them off, but the eye test don't lie, you know when something looks so much better than the other particularly when you can compared them next to each other. The notion that projector picture quality is better than TV is absolutely ridiculous.
Almost everything you've said here is factually incorrect. And you still haven't addressed the basic limitations of the human eye. You keep skirting around it with a bunch of fake news.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
I can't see pixels on my RS4500. Home " theater " means projection. I don't like looking at a glass screen. It's emissive - it's not an image reflected off a movie screen. I love the look of projection, and I've succeeded in producing an image far better than most commercial theaters. I'm never putting a TV in my theater.
That's a laser projector, better and sharper than most, but still susceptible to the same poor PPI as well as poor visibility during daylight usage where TVs win all day long. Even the blacks on the RS4500 weren't considered "inky blacks" according to one review. But I agree most projectors can beat most commercial theaters simply because they have a more concentrated area that's easier to work with.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
Almost everything you've said here is factually incorrect. And you still haven't addressed the basic limitations of the human eye. You keep skirting around it with a bunch of fake news.
You posted this within seconds so obviously you didn't even read it :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Let me put it this way: I have yet to see a 4K UHD projector, whether $1,500, or $8,995 ($1,000 more than this Sony), that even meets my minimum definition of ultra high contrast, and when you only look at the $5K and under 4K DLPs, from an acceptable black level performance standpoint, they all earn a “fail.”
https://www.projectorreviews.com/son...velperformance

The reviewer was talking about 4K DLP's and their lack of contrast, not the sony and epson. The $8995 projector he's talking about is the benq 9050, that had that as a msrp.
He's saying he considers the sony and epson 'ultra high contrast' and none of the dlp's meet his definition of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,745 Posts
Quote: https://www.projectorreviews.com/sony/sony-vpl-vw385es-true-4k-home-theater-projector-review-picture-quality-2/#blacklevelperformance
"Let me put it this way: I have yet to see a 4K UHD projector, whether $1,500, or $8,995 ($1,000 more than this Sony), that even meets my minimum definition of ultra high contrast, and when you only look at the $5K and under 4K DLPs, from an acceptable black level performance standpoint, they all earn a “fail.”

You do realize this quote is in reference to the 4K DLP (E-shift) projectors? The ones with known poor native contrast of 2,000:1 or less. A high native contrast projector like the RS540 or RS640 are completely different animals. The RS640 can actually hit it's 160,000:1 native spec. I am probably getting around 80,000:1 native contrast on my setup. An LED TV is doing well if it has 5,000 to 6,000:1 native contrast. You keep on bringing up trying to compare a projector setup in a room with ambient light. That is not the proper way to set up and or view a projector. You don't go to the movie theater and ask them to turn the lights up, when watching a movie. If you want to watch a movie in a room with the lights on, then by all means, buy a TV. I have never seen a TV based HT that can match the experience of a good projector based HT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,375 Posts
And you're wrong in your interpretation of this discussion, in fact all your ideas are all over the place. Having better resolution is supposed to let you sit closer, but with projectors projecting an image of 100" and over you still need to sit a lot further than TVs to fully appreciate them and overcome their poor PPI. That is really the whole debate considering the inconvenience of having to sit so far back. Hence the advantages of the "smaller" TVs, sitting closer and enjoying the higher resolutions. You simply cannot sit closer for projectors without noticing all their usual drawbacks with large screens/poor PPI etc.

Furthermore, we've enjoyed widespread 4K gaming since 2014 on screens smaller than 50" sitting anywhere from 30cm to 60cm away. So you are wrong to say that 4K is an overkill at these sizes from these distance. I probably shouldn't tell you about the 16K gaming system that some people have developed already, and they weren't sitting more than a metre away either.
30 to 60cm is 12 to 24 inches. That's basically gaming on a computer desk with your eyes as close as you can get to the screen.

Just FYI, this is a chart that makes it pretty clear what are the ideal distances for which resoulution:
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

From a TV you're seated by average at about a distance of 2.5 to 3 meters / 8 to 10 feet. Meaning you're not even optimally using 1080p at a normal seating distance with a 55" TV.

With a projector, you will benefit from 4k far more. With a 135" projected screen at about 2.5-3m/8-10 feet you will be able to fully resolve the 4k resolution. Sit farther away and you will need to buy a bigger screen.

And concerning 8k: Even a projector isn't actually going to be able to do much with that 8k resolution anyway, and it will put a massive load on your system (bandwidth). It's a nice gimmick to make headlines with, but it's never going to actually be used much unless we drastically change the way we watch media (With our nose right on top of absolutely massive screens).
 
81 - 100 of 324 Posts
Top