[SirMaster]

This is basically what I was trying to elucidate in my original comment. Someone said that 83” is too small compared to 135” pj. Well 135” is too small compared to 200”. I think there are those with rooms that are large and the viewing distance is greater than 10’. Definitely want a large projection setup for that. For me at 9’ deciding between 100” nx7 and 83” A90J OLED I’m leaning towards OLED because of other variables besides size. I would definitely be happy with a pj though too. We live in some pretty splendid times with all the options, and it’s only getting better. 🍻

I mean it's not even just that.

It's not like I am choosing a display based on some room limitations.

I am starting with nothing.

I will build a room, a whole new construction addition to a house if I have to in order to have a large screen somewhere around 200" or so.

I have been to many other home theaters and seen and experiences full films at various screen sizes and ceiling heights, etc.

I know that I want a large screen because no TV or other setup can recreate the look and the feeling and overall cinematic experience of a large projection screen for movies.

The only reason I would ever go with a TV is if I simply couldn't accommodate a larger screen period.

The image quality of high-end 4K projectors these days are good enough to the point that I don't find the image lacking whatsoever.

 

[Erod]

Hey Craig Peer,

The one thing I think some members might want to keep in mind when discussing with us that have projectors.
We are not talking about 100-inch screens ............
Mine is considered by some AVS members to be small and believe me I have seen those comments more than a few times.
And I have a 123" 16x9 Stewart with the Latest/Newest ST130 G-4 screen material for viewing 4k & HDR content.
Add to that mine also has Full 4-Way "Remote-Masking" for viewing all aspect ratio movies.

Below are the Techs standing with the New Screen and as you can see this is actually a huge screen guys and a 100" OLED wouldn't come close to what it is.



Terry

I have the same as you, but my screen is 120 inches.

That is as big as you should go IMO from my distance, which is 11 feet. Any bigger than ours, and I think we'd miss too much detail with my head on a swivel, and the color saturation and HDR impact lessens. Obviosly it changes based on viewing distance.

But to each his own. Everybody should get what they want.

 

[Erod]

I mean it's not even just that.

It's not like I am choosing a display based on some room limitations.

I am starting with nothing.

I will build a room, a whole new construction addition to a house if I have to in order to have a large screen somewhere around 200" or so.

I have been to many other home theaters and seen and experiences full films at various screen sizes and ceiling heights, etc.

I know that I want a large screen because no TV or other setup can recreate the look and the feeling and overall cinematic experience of a large projection screen for movies.

The only reason I would ever go with a TV is if I simply couldn't accommodate a larger screen period.

The image quality of high-end 4K projectors these days are good enough to the point that I don't find the image lacking whatsoever.

And if you change your mind, you can change your screen. Bigger, smaller, acoustically transparent, gain, additional drop-down for different ratio....your projector stays in place.

 

[heftyfunseeker]

I mean it's not even just that.

It's not like I am choosing a display based on some room limitations.

I am starting with nothing.

I will build a room, a whole new construction addition to a house if I have to in order to have a large screen somewhere around 200" or so.

I have been to many other home theaters and seen and experiences full films at various screen sizes and ceiling heights, etc.

I know that I want a large screen because no TV or other setup can recreate the look and the feeling and overall cinematic experience of a large projection screen for movies.

The only reason I would ever go with a TV is if I simply couldn't accommodate a larger screen period.

The image quality of high-end 4K projectors these days are good enough to the point that I don't find the image lacking whatsoever.

It is that though. For you 200” is enough.
200” is small compared to a 300” screen though!

 

[Craig Peer]

 

[SirMaster]

It is that though. For you 200” is enough.
200” is small compared to a 300” screen though!

But I would go with 300" if it wasn't so cost-prohibitive.

I have a limited amount of funds.

But if I have enough money for an 83" OLED, I have enough money for a much bigger projector screen.

 

[heftyfunseeker]

But I would go with 300" if it wasn't so cost-prohibitive.

I have a limited amount of funds.

But if I have enough money for an 83" OLED, I have enough money for a much bigger projector screen.

Yeah I hear ya. And no doubt your system is going to rock! I’m fortunate to have the room to go larger and the funds, but there’s this part of me that can’t get over the fact that I’d just be chasing screen size. Once I have that, I’d be back to chasing pq. So for me, I keep reasonable (to me) constraints with my room size and then throw a big OLED on the wall in a pitch black room and I’ve been surprisingly happy with it. Here’s the thing though. I’m not after the dedicated commercial theater vibe. I have an extremely large couch (basically the size of king size bed if not larger) instead of theater seats. I like the look of my 100” RH media cabinet.

All that is to say, I get some people are chasing that commercial cinema vibe. That’s rad, but it’s not for me. I like curling up on the couch with my family and try to emphasize the “home” in home theater.

 

[JonfromCB]

Hello guys,

Well fellows as all of us have seen on this thread there is a mix of opinions on the question of ...........
Are Projectors dead?
So, I'm not even going to try to convince those that love their OLED Flat-Screen TVs to switch to a projector.
And I have a few thoughts/reasons why I'm not going down that path ^^^
(1) It's obvious that those of you that have the OLED love them so why would you change no matter what I say.
(2) Lastly, if you wanted a Projector you would already have one.

Now, let me add some comments on what the Title is for this Dedicated Thread ... Are Projectors dead?

I can't imagine anyone thinking seriously that projectors are dead or going to be dead really.
And the reasoning behind my above statement is simple.
It's all about "Individual-Choices" ................
As well as "Specific-Applications" ............

In my case with my "Dedicated-Home-Theater" there is No-Way a Huge OLED would work and below is why.



Being 100% serious with No Wise-Ass-Ridiculous, Dumb-Ass-Comments there is No-Way a Huge OLED is going to "Bend" to go around a corner !!!

In-conclusion it's nice that everyone has a choice for what they prefer and My-Personal-Opinion is there is No-Wrong-Choice !!!

Terry

Exactly. Size, size, size. Your example is only one of how and why size matters. Reality is most people also don't have the space (size again) or budget (size again) for a large enough dedicated theater to accomodate a PJ with a 15 to 20 foot throw (size again) , that can accomodate multiple $2K chairs, with what can easily be an over $10K sound system (size again). Size of space and size of budget are key elements that are actually bringing more new and different types of PJs to consumers rather than less....just look at all the the new short throws if you don't think so.

"Size" is also affecting the TV market. I can't tell you how many friends and family come to our HT and say they would like to have a biger screen television but just don't have the space for it. I have a $500 40" tv in my living room with a $5k surround system that is primarily used to fill my house with music. I choose to keep my living room that way and my HT is where we watch movies, our favorite shows, sports and I spend a lot of time there with my "higher end" music system.

You wisely mention that it's a choice! When I can get a 120 inch plus TV that rivals my next PJ replacement budget, then my next choice just might be a TV for my HT rather than a PJ. I don't suspect the price of a 120 inch plus TV to come anywhere close to that in the next 5 years though.

 

[tigerhonaker]

Hey Craig Peer,

The one thing I think some members might want to keep in mind when discussing with us that have projectors.
We are not talking about 100-inch screens ............
Mine is considered by some AVS members to be small and believe me I have seen those comments more than a few times.
And I have a 123" 16x9 Stewart with the Latest/Newest ST130 G-4 screen material for viewing 4k & HDR content.
Add to that mine also has Full 4-Way "Remote-Masking" for viewing all aspect ratio movies.

Below are the Techs standing with the New Screen and as you can see this is actually a huge screen guys and a 100" OLED wouldn't come close to what it is.



Terry

I have the same as you, but my screen is 120 inches.

That is as big as you should go IMO from my distance, which is 11 feet. Any bigger than ours, and I think we'd miss too much detail with my head on a swivel, and the color saturation and HDR impact lessens. Obviosly it changes based on viewing distance.

But to each his own. Everybody should get what they want.

Erod,

You know I referred to in my previous post about a 100" OLED.
Actually I have to buddies (Brothers) in San Antonio, TX.
They both have now New 85" Sony flat-screen TV's.
And those 85" flat-screens are huge ..............
I cannot imagine what a 100" OLED would be Cost Wise much less it's overall size.
Members here refer to a 100" OLED but actually IMO how many people really have the room for something that huge much less it's cost?
My point is on the AVS internet site I think members lose touch with the general public !!!
IMO the greater majority of the Middle-Class in the USA have maybe a 60" Flat Screen not even the OLED.
That's reality ^^^

Truly dedicated home theater's are far and few between with the normal working class American Families.
I'm soon to be 76-years old and I don't know even 1-other person that has a True "Dedicated Home Theater".

Here is an older picture but it does show the distance from our seating to the screen.
The difference is the screen was dropped way down after this but the distance from us to it is the same.
The reasoning behind my set distance is .............
I am almost in the center of the HT.
Also when I had the Atmos added I also went with 6-in-ceiling speakers which also influenced the viewing distance I use.
So after having the HT audio Professionally Calibrated along with the Video.
The seating distance is working out Very-very well and the 123" 16x9 W/4-way remote masking and it's New Stewart ST130 G4 material is excellent.
And as you have said one is not constantly moving their head back and forth.

The pros that have been in my HT have all said their opinions are Terry you have an excellent overall Set-Up !!!
That's ^^^ for Audio & Video excellence .............



Below is a current up to date picture of the HT but the distances are not marked for seating.



The Atmos in-ceiling 6 Custom Triad speakers without the magnetic covers installed yet.





Terry

 

[Craig Peer]

Yeah I hear ya. And no doubt your system is going to rock! I’m fortunate to have the room to go larger and the funds, but there’s this part of me that can’t get over the fact that I’d just be chasing screen size. Once I have that, I’d be back to chasing pq. So for me, I keep reasonable (to me) constraints with my room size and then throw a big OLED on the wall in a pitch black room and I’ve been surprisingly happy with it. Here’s the thing though. I’m not after the dedicated commercial theater vibe. I have an extremely large couch (basically the size of king size bed if not larger) instead of theater seats. I like the look of my 100” RH media cabinet.

All that is to say, I get some people are chasing that commercial cinema vibe. That’s rad, but it’s not for me. I like curling up on the couch with my family and try to emphasize the “home” in home theater.

That's why I have a section sofa.

 

[heftyfunseeker]

That's why I have a section sofa. View attachment 3118376

Love it!

 

[Erod]

Hey Craig Peer,

The one thing I think some members might want to keep in mind when discussing with us that have projectors.
We are not talking about 100-inch screens ............
Mine is considered by some AVS members to be small and believe me I have seen those comments more than a few times.
And I have a 123" 16x9 Stewart with the Latest/Newest ST130 G-4 screen material for viewing 4k & HDR content.
Add to that mine also has Full 4-Way "Remote-Masking" for viewing all aspect ratio movies.

Below are the Techs standing with the New Screen and as you can see this is actually a huge screen guys and a 100" OLED wouldn't come close to what it is.



Terry



Erod,

You know I referred to in my previous post about a 100" OLED.
Actually I have to buddies (Brothers) in San Antonio, TX.
They both have now New 85" Sony flat-screen TV's.
And those 85" flat-screens are huge ..............
I cannot imagine what a 100" OLED would be Cost Wise much less it's overall size.
Members here refer to a 100" OLED but actually IMO how many people really have the room for something that huge much less it's cost?
My point is on the AVS internet site I think members lose touch with the general public !!!
IMO the greater majority of the Middle-Class in the USA have maybe a 60" Flat Screen not even the OLED.
That's reality ^^^

Truly dedicated home theater's are far and few between with the normal working class American Families.
I'm soon to be 76-years old and I don't know even 1-other person that has a True "Dedicated Home Theater".

Here is an older picture but it does show the distance from our seating to the screen.
The difference is the screen was dropped way down after this but the distance from us to it is the same.
The reasoning behind my set distance is .............
I am almost in the center of the HT.
Also when I had the Atmos added I also went with 6-in-ceiling speakers which also influenced the viewing distance I use.
So after having the HT audio Professionally Calibrated along with the Video.
The seating distance is working out Very-very well and the 123" 16x9 W/4-way remote masking and it's New Stewart ST130 G4 material is excellent.
And as you have said one is not constantly moving their head back and forth.

The pros that have been in my HT have all said their opinions are Terry you have an excellent overall Set-Up !!!
That's ^^^ for Audio & Video excellence .............



Below is a current up to date picture of the HT but the distances are not marked for seating.



The Atmos in-ceiling 6 Custom Triad speakers without the magnetic covers installed yet.





Terry

Oh, I hear what you're saying, but the thread title was "Are projectors dead", and the question was posed because of the potential of 100-inch OLEDs.

That, to me, is laughable. Why measure your screen in inches when you can do it in feet!!

But no doubt, we are the niche outliers.

I have a JVC RS3000 with a Lumagen Radiance Pro that was professionally calibrated by Chad B. That isn't a real market; I'm one of the crazies like you.

However, there is a more cost-effective way to do home theaters with projectors, and it's a far more cinematic experience than an OLED.

TVs are basically big flashlights, and we don't see by nature because of things flashing in our eyes. We see based on reflections of light off of what we're looking at, and that's how a projector works.

That's why projectors are a much more immersive and cinematic experience than what TVs can provide, especially now that projectors are in the native 4K category now.

 

[gamest]

TVs are basically big flashlights, and we don't see by nature because of things flashing in our eyes. We see based on reflections of light off of what we're looking at, and that's how a projector works.

No, actually we see by both and well…........
Okay, I am not going to go down the atomic physics involved with all of that. Not on AVS

That's why projectors are a much more immersive and cinematic experience than what TVs can provide, especially now that projectors are in the native 4K category now.

I don’t know, and I don’t mean to be a buzz killer here, but this topic has come up so many times I have my thoughts on why projectors are not dead and never will be.



Maybe it’s a far fundamentally simpler thing than we realize why projectors are not dead. Something that can’t be so easy qualified via specs and technical differences between technologies, reflective or direct light. But rather, just another example of preference we have of our given conditioning from years of experiences watching movies in theaters. We started watching movies in cinema theaters via reflective light at 25 fps with acoustically transparent screens in complete darkness and so on, and that became the norm for what a good PROJECTOR cinema display experience should look like. Someone here posted a good example of the movie “Passengers”(granted just a movie) were in the far future even then the ship had wall displays with screens of better then OLED at 8-16-32,000K and 3D so on, yet they would still watch a Movie with a projector for fun as authentic. Authentic….think about it, what is a authentic cinema projection experience? It’s no different then the “soap-opera-effect” thing, higher frame rate and frame interpolation some if not most of us do not like. It is a thing, and why? Because it’s too real looking, right? Looks like a home cam video not a cinema movie. Oh, and when did too real become a bad thing, too good too real of an image? When it was not an authentic representation of the cinema experience, right? Okay, I will stop asking stupid questions.

But just saying.


END-OF-LINE

 

[Erod]

No, actually we see by both and well…........
Okay, I am not going to go down the atomic physics involved with all of that. Not on AVS


I don’t know, and I don’t mean to be a buzz killer here, but this topic has come up so many times I have my thoughts on why projectors are not dead and never will be.



Maybe it’s a far fundamentally simpler thing than we realize why projectors are not dead. Something that can’t be so easy qualified via specs and technical differences between technologies, reflective or direct light. But rather, just another example of preference we have of our given conditioning from years of experiences watching movies in theaters. We started watching movies in cinema theaters via reflective light at 25 fps with acoustically transparent screens in complete darkness and so on, and that became the norm for what a good PROJECTOR cinema display experience should look like. Someone here posted a good example of the movie “Passengers”(granted just a movie) were in the far future even then the ship had wall displays with screens of better then OLED at 8-16-32,000K and 3D so on, yet they would still watch a Movie with a projector for fun as authentic. Authentic….think about it, what is a authentic cinema projection experience? It’s no different then the “soap-opera-effect” thing, higher frame rate and frame interpolation some if not most of us do not like. It is a thing, and why? Because it’s too real looking, right? Looks like a home cam video not a cinema movie. Oh, and when did too real become a bad thing, too good too real of an image? When it was not an authentic representation of the cinema experience, right? Okay, I will stop asking stupid questions.

But just saying.


END-OF-LINE

Regarding SOE, I've never been a fan of it at all.

However, I use low on my RS3000. Finally it's been done in a manner that is very subtle and helps with panning blur without creating that odd SOE look.

Helps a lot with large screens and panning.

 

[woofer]

Yeah, even a 100" screen is too small IMO, when compared to even a 150".

Plus for my next screen I want more like 200"

Yeah i currently have a 143" Scope and intend to change to something in the vicinity of 170/180" Scope ....

Couldn't imagine using 100" or less !!! in a "Home Theatre"

 

[heftyfunseeker]

Yeah i currently have a 143" Scope and intend to change to something in the vicinity of 170/180" Scope ....

Couldn't imagine using 100" or less !!! in a "Home Theatre"

I can appreciate other people’s preferences and opinions, but the quotes around home theater feel pretty snarky. I think it’s pretty easy and cheap to get a big image on the wall these days. I guess you have to have the space for it, but most of us in this forum probably do though. I get it though. Bigger is better and the most important variable is size to most here.

 

[woofer]

I can appreciate other people’s preferences and opinions, but the quotes around home theater feel pretty snarky. I think it’s pretty easy and cheap to get a big image on the wall these days. I guess you have to have the space for it, but most of us in this forum probably do though. I get it though. Bigger is better and the most important variable is size to most here.

No...that's the issue.. i want a lager 170/180" screen BUT its exceeding the capabilities of my Z1/RS4500...so NOT cheap and easy!

My comment wasn't intended to be "Snarky" ...it just the term "Home Theatre" ..... with ..."Theatre".....usually being always associated with a BIG / Large scale .

 

[gamest]

Regarding SOE, I've never been a fan of it at all.

However, I use low on my RS3000. Finally it's been done in a manner that is very subtle and helps with panning blur without creating that odd SOE look.

Helps a lot with large screens and panning.

Yeah, I totally agree.
I use it on low too for those reasons. I wish I had your projector when it comes to 4K tho, because mine can not do it on 4K content only 2K. But I was just using the SOE thing as one example. Their are other examples as to why I think we feel the way we do with Projectors from Cinema experiences. Its deeply imbedded in all of us I think. In some part

 

[Vern Dias]

We started watching movies in cinema theaters via reflective light at 25 fps with acoustically transparent screens in complete darkness and so on, and that became the norm for what a good PROJECTOR cinema display experience should look like.

Uh, that would be 24 Frames Per Second with each frame exposed twice resulting in 48 Hz "refresh" rate.

 

[gamest]

Uh, that would be 24 Frames Per Second with each frame exposed twice resulting in 48 Hz "refresh" rate.

Indeed, I stand corrected. But I think you get my point, that was a standard "thing" and for the most part did not change for a VERY long time in cinema's