[NewConnection]

Lets say in 3 years, no more than 5 years, all or most of our Ultra HD aspirations of HDR, increased color gamut, greater bit depth, 4K res. and such are met. Many of us have our front projectors in a semi-treated family room environment, with screen size limitations, say 94 to 110inchs. If aprox. 85inch 4KOLED came down to a reasonable price, would you consider getting rid of a 100inch screen front pj. I think the deep blacks and high contrast ratio with vibrant colors at that size will have a significant qualitative visual impression, that would trump any 100inch front pj. I do not see any potential for better blacks in an average picture, thus no better contrast either, only 4k res. and increased color gamut for front pj, from a new light source. Under similar future circumstances, what do you think you would do?

 

[zombie10k]

I would like to have an 85" 4K OLED but it would still look small compared to my 142".

for 100" screens, it seems like it would be close enough.


85" vs. 142".

maybe one day the dream of roll up OLED screens @ 150+, now we're talking!!

 

[Seegs108]

There are a few issues with OLED that I find inherently do not give the same home theater experience that front projection gives. There can be a wholly organic and natural look to a front projection image that you just don't get with flat panels. A lot of it has to do with the screen surface being glass or some type of AR coated synthetic material. This really gives the image the feeling you're watching a "TV" and brings you out of the experience a little bit. There's also the issue with speaker placement in how it "should" be set up. Ideally you want an AT screen so you place the front speakers behind the screen to get proper sound imaging. You aren't going to get this with a flat panel. Plus, right now OLED is not a mature panel type. You have issues with reliability and longevity plus issues with image retention. I'm sure in my living room or as a PC monitor in a few years OLED will look enticing, but currently it's not a technology most are willing to make the investment for. I actually think quantum dots are more exciting than OLEDs.

To answer your question, no, I don't think die hard enthusiasts with real theaters will replace their projectors with OLED screens. It's just not the same even if PQ is arguably better. It's a "different" image no matter how you look at it and in many ways "that" type of image just doesn't bode well with what die hard enthusiasts are looking for. Now that home theater projectors has gotten so good with contrast, brightness, sharpness, and color reproduction it's a hard sell to go down in size when a projector can give you an equally appealing image at a much larger size with the other benefits talked about above that no flat panel can give you.

 

[rlindo]

85" would still be too small and I'm using a 106" screen. I would like OLED style image quality though at 100" inches. My JVC X500 throws a great image but it's no OLED. Can't beat OLED's true black. Looks amazing.

 

[mark haflich]

With say an 100 inch D screen, you really don't need an AT screen. a 100 inch screen is only 49 x 87 if 1.78. If your center is mounted at screen top or bottom it will be only about 2 ft from vertical center. a small tilt in the center and there should be no issue in feeling that the sound is emanating from the center, in fact the sound and picture will be better. As for LR speaker placed on either side of that massive 87 inch wide screen hardly an issue that a small inward toe in wouldn't cure. With an 84 inch d flat panel, there would be nothing to give up with perimeter speaker placement.

 

[Brad/Viper-Fan]

Unless they develop 2.35-1 big flat panels I would prefer a screen and projector. For me, the best advantage of a screen and projector is the ability to watch scope movies without letterbox bars and at a reasonable size (to fit the room) for a convincing theater experience. If all I watched was 1.78-1 then I'd probably would be ok with an oled flat panel of 85".

 

[pgwalsh]

Unless they develop 2.35-1 big flat panels I would prefer a screen and projector. For me, the best advantage of a screen and projector is the ability to watch scope movies without letterbox bars and at a reasonable size (to fit the room) for a convincing theater experience. If all I watched was 1.78-1 then I'd probably would be ok with an oled flat panel of 85".

+1 on this.

I prefer wider format movies 2.35:1 and wider.

 

[Deja Vu]

Personally I'd like to keep my projector system and just raise the screen so I can view the large OLED T.V. behind it. How much would I use this type of T.V.? I don't know but like to give it a shot to find out. For me it's not one or the other -- it's both. And yes, I'm very interested in OLED. I've seen it and I find it very enticing.

 

[fierce_gt]

what I would require is:
-flexible screen that could be rolled for easy transport(I could not fit a 70" screen into my basement, let alone a 120 +)
-lightweight, I don't want to have to take special steps to mount the screen. just find a couple studs and be done. let's say 100lbs max?
-excellent viewing angle
-2.35:1 or similar AR, I'm a HUGE fan of CIH now, and I really, really don't want to go back.
-and here's the real killer, can it be acoustically transparent? haha. that's one compromise I MIGHT make, because I imagine I'd have to, but it's also one reason I probably won't go the large OLED route until everything else on my list is met, AND it's cheaper than projection.


I imagine i'll adopt oled for the bedroom, living room, etc in time. I can't stand edgelit LED's, so I'm willing to pay just about anything to avoid having to use one.

 

[mark haflich]

what I would require is:
-flexible screen that could be rolled for easy transport(I could not fit a 70" screen into my basement, let alone a 120 +)
-lightweight, I don't want to have to take special steps to mount the screen. just find a couple studs and be done. let's say 100lbs max?
-excellent viewing angle
-2.35:1 or similar AR, I'm a HUGE fan of CIH now, and I really, really don't want to go back.
-and here's the real killer, can it be acoustically transparent? haha. that's one compromise I MIGHT make, because I imagine I'd have to, but it's also one reason I probably won't go the large OLED route until everything else on my list is met, AND it's cheaper than projection.


I imagine i'll adopt oled for the bedroom, living room, etc in time. I can't stand edgelit LED's, so I'm willing to pay just about anything to avoid having to use one.

You wouldn't need to find a couple of studs. A couple of average size and look guys or a couple of medium build women would do just fine.

 

[mark haflich]

Choosing an AT projection screen is always a compromise too re video quality but is a necessary one to make where projection screens are very big. But if your screen size is small it is a choice that will result in a net negative.

 

[fierce_gt]

With say an 100 inch D screen, you really don't need an AT screen. a 100 inch screen is only 49 x 87 if 1.78. If your center is mounted at screen top or bottom it will be only about 2 ft from vertical center. a small tilt in the center and there should be no issue in feeling that the sound is emanating from the center, in fact the sound and picture will be better. As for LR speaker placed on either side of that massive 87 inch wide screen hardly an issue that a small inward toe in wouldn't cure. With an 84 inch d flat panel, there would be nothing to give up with perimeter speaker placement.

my rebuttle to this is that if I can fit a 100" screen with my speakers to either side, then I could have a 120" screen with the speakers behind the screen.


in a 'perfect world' you are right, but for those of us trying to get the most out of a small space, the AT screen is more than just being able to put your center channel in the middle of it.


i just think that the oled needs to be a significant improvement in picture quality, and very little extra work to transport and set up, if I'm going to give up on an AT screen and the required drop in size that means for my room.

 

[fierce_gt]

Choosing an AT projection screen is always a compromise too re video quality but is a necessary one to make where projection screens are very big. But if your screen size is small it is a choice that will result in a net negative.

having the option is always better than not having the option...

 

[fierce_gt]

You wouldn't need to find a couple of studs. A couple of average size and look guys or a couple of medium build women would do just fine.

haha, i had no idea what you were talking about until i re-read this.

 

[pgwalsh]

my rebuttle to this is that if I can fit a 100" screen with my speakers to either side, then I could have a 120" screen with the speakers behind the screen.


in a 'perfect world' you are right, but for those of us trying to get the most out of a small space, the AT screen is more than just being able to put your center channel in the middle of it.


i just think that the oled needs to be a significant improvement in picture quality, and very little extra work to transport and set up, if I'm going to give up on an AT screen and the required drop in size that means for my room.

The caveat is viewing distance, no? If you don't have the distance than the 120 can be a bit much.

 

[Seegs108]

For a 120" image, the recommended seating distance is roughly 15 feet or closer by most pro-recommendations. If your room isn't 12-15 feet long that's an awfully small room.

 

[pgwalsh]

For a 120" image, the recommended seating distance is roughly 15 feet or closer by most pro-recommendations. If your room isn't 12-15 feet long that's an awfully small room.

True.. Mine is 19.5" long and 18.3 wide, but if you do 2 rows of seats and are using 16x9 screen at 120", your first row is going to be a bit too close. Unless it's a 4k screen I suppose.

 

[DavidHir]

I sit 10 feet back from my 9 foot wide, 2:35 screen (which is like watching scope movies at 124" diagonally on a 16x9 screen). I wouldn't want to sit much further back at that size as I would lose too much immersion.

 

[dovercat]

Lets say in 3 years, no more than 5 years, all or most of our Ultra HD aspirations of HDR, increased color gamut, greater bit depth, 4K res. and such are met. Many of us have our front projectors in a semi-treated family room environment, with screen size limitations, say 94 to 110inchs. If aprox. 85inch 4KOLED came down to a reasonable price, would you consider getting rid of a 100inch screen front pj. I think the deep blacks and high contrast ratio with vibrant colors at that size will have a significant qualitative visual impression, that would trump any 100inch front pj. I do not see any potential for better blacks in an average picture, thus no better contrast either, only 4k res. and increased color gamut for front pj, from a new light source. Under similar future circumstances, what do you think you would do?

A projector illuminating a small front projector screen in a non-ideal viewing environment vs a OLED that would be far better suited to such a viewing environment and at current prices is far more expensive. Yes I think the OLED would win and be a no-brainer if it was a "reasonable" price. One caveat would be that if OLED uses sub-pixels for each color it would need to be far higher than 4K unless viewing distance is going to be greater, and a 85" diagonal image is much smaller than a 110" diagonal image.

As far as deep blacks and high contrast ratio with vibrant colors, front projection can already look extremely good in an ideal viewing environment. As far as what do I think I would do. I have a second hand projector in a dedicated room illuminating a larger screen so would stick with that, while in the living room there is a 20" flat panel in the corner for watching TV. I have no desire to own a huge flat panel TV and my idea of "reasonable" price is very very cheap.

 

[fierce_gt]

The caveat is viewing distance, no? If you don't have the distance than the 120 can be a bit much.

For a 120" image, the recommended seating distance is roughly 15 feet or closer by most pro-recommendations. If your room isn't 12-15 feet long that's an awfully small room.

what he said...

but, it's not the specifics that i'm suggesting, but the general idea that in any given room, you can have a larger screen if it's AT compared to non-AT. it's just happens that in MY room i can only fit a 120" screen if it's AT, that gives only about 6" between the edge of the screen and the wall. where my speakers are right now, i have a 100" electric screen that just about covers up 1/3 of my front speakers already. the tweeters just sort of peak around the edge, still not ideal. for what it's worth, i find the 100" disappointing to view scope movies on, even from my front row. i rehung my old 120" screen and damn the audio when i watch most movies. for me, i will be going AT with my next room for sure.

there are instances where you can have a big enough screen either way, and maybe in the group of ppl that have projectors already (let's be honest, many ppl who have had projectors for years are pretty comfortable financially), that might even be common. but as more and more 'regular folk' are finding front projection a possibility, and add in UHD resolutions soon, i think it's going to be quite common for ppl to want to shoehorn the biggest screen possible into their room.

so i guess my point is, whatever size oled you can fit, you could go 2-4feet wider with a AT screen instead. that might be the difference between a 16:9 and 2.35:1 screen of the same height, and i'd definitely take the scope screen. or you just get a much bigger 16:9 screen, which may or may not be a good thing.