+1 on this.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".
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.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.
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.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.
having the option is always better than not having the option...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.
haha, i had no idea what you were talking about until i re-read this.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.
The caveat is viewing distance, no? If you don't have the distance than the 120 can be a bit much.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.
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.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.
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.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?
The caveat is viewing distance, no? If you don't have the distance than the 120 can be a bit much.
what he said...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.
