[kamon211]

Hey guys, im in the market for either a jvc rs15 or rs25, havent made up my mind if the price is worth it for the rs25. this will be my 1st projector, currently have a 56" DLP so i have high expectations hehe.


the only thing holding me back is spending $5k+ on a nice 1080P PJ only to have a 4Kx2K PJ released 6 months later for relatively the same price

 

[cavu]



Quote:
Originally Posted by kamon211 /forum/post/18201722


only to have a 4Kx2K PJ released 6 months later for relatively the same price

Not gonna happen for a long time.

 

[rjyap]

Do you need 3D? If not, I don't see why you need HDMI 1.4.

 

[kamon211]

3d is cool, but not a huge thing for me.


My issue is, I purchased my 720P/1080i TV, a year later 1080P was pretty much standard....i dont want to make the same mistake. If 1.4 PJ's are just around the corner, i would mind waiting abit.


I gotta admit, it would be awsome to have a 200" screen at 4000x2000 res.

 

[JOHNnDENVER]



Quote:
Originally Posted by kamon211 /forum/post/18204230


3d is cool, but not a huge thing for me.


My issue is, I purchased my 720P/1080i TV, a year later 1080P was pretty much standard....i dont want to make the same mistake. If 1.4 PJ's are just around the corner, i would mind waiting abit.


I gotta admit, it would be awsome to have a 200" screen at 4000x2000 res.

Lots of people still buying 720p displays. Not sure I'd consider that one a mistake.

 

[erkq]



Quote:
Originally Posted by kamon211 /forum/post/18204230


I gotta admit, it would be awsome to have a 200" screen at 4000x2000 res.

There won't be 4k source material for a long time. And, you'd have to sit less than 1x screen width for it to matter unless you have 20-15 vision or better. The one thing a 4k system could do is bring the IMAX experience home. Standard cinema; we've got plenty of resolution now. Other issues are more important to improve now... except if you want the IMAX theater!

 

[PLB]

You seem to be asking about two different issues. Maybe more.


As I understand it the HDMI 1.4 spec has a number of new features one of which is higher frequency. This higher frequency capability can allow advanced video services like 3D or 4K resolution - but it doesn't in anyway require them.


Consider the history of Ethernet. It began at 3Mbps over wide coax with vampire taps. Soon It went to 10Mbps on thin coax with BNC connectors and then on twisted pair with RJ45s. Shortly thereafter it went to 100Mbps and now 1Gbps on optic fiber.


Ethernet wasn't fast enough at 3Mbps. When it became available at 10Mbps it allowed client server networks. That means a file server in a closet down the hall could display your word processing file just as fast (apparently) as you local hard disk. This was a crucial point of evolution. 10Mbps was a "sweet spot" that made office automation possible.


Computers got faster and Ethernet got faster but little of that mattered for mainstream business office computing. Most of the applications for the highest speeds are for server room computing.


I first wired up my house for thin coax Ethernet about fifteen years ago. Over the years I have torn out the old coax and replaced it with CAT-3 TP and then again with CAT-5. The new HDMI 1.4 will also include Ethernet wiring (100Mbps). Maybe I will run my little home network over HDMI cabling or maybe I'll go wireless. All I know is that wiring changes continuously.


The current ATSC digital television standards has two major HDTV standards - 720p and 1080i. These can both be accommodated on HDMI 1.3 cabling as can the little 1080p Blu-ray to TV link. Current HD rates are at a "sweet spot" comparable to the Ethernet 10Mbps level. Most work groups in standard business never need more capacity that 10Mps. Yet almost everyone now runs faster 100Mbps equipment. Why? Largely because it's free. All new PCs and Macs have fast Ethernet built in. Standard wiring supports the higher speed too. So why not?


The same is true of HDMI 1.4. No one today needs it ( a situation that will change this year) and many who have already invested in HDMI 1.2 or 1.3 resent having to throw away their nearly new equipment. But this is only a problem for hobbyists and early adopters. The vast majority of people have never bought an HDMI cable or piece of equipment yet. When they get their first HDMI projector or TV they will probably get one with HDMI 1.4. or they may go for a bargain older model. It won't be a problem. The only losers are those who spent $100 on an obsolete HDMI Monster Cable. They will be upset that their neighbor bought an new HDMI 1.4 cable on the Web for $3.00.


I think HDMI 1.4 will replace earlier versions principally because - why the hell not? Radio Shack will soon carry nothing else. People will not upgrade out of rational need like the need for 4K X 2K bandwidth or 3D. They will upgrade because the new machines all have 1.4 built in and the cables are dirt cheap.

 

[PLB]

Personally I doubt if 4K X 2K video will catch on at home. It may catch on for theaters but I expect that movies theaters of whatever type will soon fade. The main reason that people don't have IMAX like Home Theaters is simply architectural.


An IMAX screen is just a really big 4:3 screen. Even the people with million dollar HTs seldom have a screen that is much more than one story high. Houses are built for people who largely come in all the same size. People may have "cathedral" ceilings in their living room but even so those ceilings are seldom more than two stories high. People who want a super big screen are more likely to go wide for a Cinemascope experience rather than high for an IMAX experience.


My car is twenty feet long (or so). Bill Gates who is at least a hundred times richer than me doesn't have a car 2,000 feet long. He might have an expensive Runco projector not a cheap Mitsubishi like me, but if he has a HT at all it isn't going to have a much bigger screen than I have - maybe only twice.


So personal Home Theater screens are about a big as they are ever likely to get. Why do we need all the bandwidth of 4K? It's unlikely that any human eye can see the difference in resolution between 1080 and 4K on a typical 110" screen from any reasonable distance. Color can be improved, frame rate can be improved and of course there is always 3D, but resolution alone doesn't need to get any better.

 

[Brian McKay]

Still waiting on more 7.1 titles on BD let alone 3D titles

 

[Jason Turk]



Quote:
Originally Posted by kamon211 /forum/post/18201722


Hey guys, im in the market for either a jvc rs15 or rs25, havent made up my mind if the price is worth it for the rs25. this will be my 1st projector, currently have a 56" DLP so i have high expectations hehe.


the only thing holding me back is spending $5k+ on a nice 1080P PJ only to have a 4Kx2K PJ released 6 months later for relatively the same price

If resolution is what you are worried about...I wouldn't. If you want 3d that is a bit different.

 

[kamon211]

Well, I'm too excited about getting my 1st projector and after talking to Jason and the great prices he gave, I pulled the trigger and went for the jvc rs15.

 

[Sherardp]



Quote:
Originally Posted by kamon211 /forum/post/18211882


Well, I'm too excited about getting my 1st projector and after talking to Jason and the great prices he gave, I pulled the trigger and went for the jvc rs15.

Very nice bro, enjoy.

 

[Jason Turk]

Thanks for the biz!

 

[ChrisMilne]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Turk /forum/post/18211194


If resolution is what you are worried about...I wouldn't. If you want 3d that is a bit different.

I've never seen a 4K tv, are you saying you can't really tell the difference at a normal viewing distance between that and 1080p?

 

[Jason Turk]

In terms of a "TV" (typical 42"-65" size)...in most rooms humans cannot even resolve a difference between 720p and 1080p, let alone 4k. For front projection it is different because we are talking a much bigger size. But even so, 1080p is usually good for 1.3ish viewing distance without being able to see pixels (16:9 screen width x 1.3)...


Basically unless you like to sit REALLY close, 4k is not critical.

 

[LilGator]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Turk /forum/post/18369688


In terms of a "TV" (typical 42"-65" size)...in most rooms humans cannot even resolve a difference between 720p and 1080p, let alone 4k. For front projection it is different because we are talking a much bigger size. But even so, 1080p is usually good for 1.3ish viewing distance without being able to see pixels (16:9 screen width x 1.3)...


Basically unless you like to sit REALLY close, 4k is not critical.

I'm not sure how I feel about that one. Based on visual acuity at 20/20, a seating distance of 3.3x image height (2.40 screen for example), or 1.4x image width the benefits of resolutions greater than 1080p can be resolved (approx. numbers, but pretty close).


Seating closer than these ratios is certainly common, and fall well within SMPTE/THX specs.


How accurate and applicable visual acuity calculations can be I'm not sure, but they seem pretty accurate for that 720p/1080p divide for "TVs" as you describe.


It's definitely not critical, but I don't think we've maxed out our resolution perception at seating distances still well within spec (2x-3x image height).


Of course, there's far more to to picture quality than resolution, and lots to improve on with front projection, that's for sure.

 

[cavu]



Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator /forum/post/18374266


It's definitely not critical, but I don't think we've maxed out our resolution perception at seating distances still well within spec (2x-3x image height).

You have to sit at FIVE FEET or less from a 50" display to fully resolve even a 1440p image!

 

[Alan Gouger]

If waiting for 1.4 you might wait a little longer for 1.4b which will be better then plain ole 1.4 "but wait

" 1.4c is just around the corner.

If you are successful in waiting for 1.4 the day you make a purchase 1.5 will be announced

 

[stanger89]

The thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is that even if you do get 4k machines "soon" and determine that the added pixels are beneficial, actual 4k content is much, much further off. Most of us will have to wait until the successor to Blu-ray, which is not unrealistically probably 7-10 years out.


Without 4k content, there's no need for anything beyond HDMI 1.3 for transport, even if you've got a 4k display.

 

[LilGator]



Quote:
Originally Posted by cavu /forum/post/18374601


You have to sit at FIVE FEET or less from a 50" display to fully resolve even a 1440p image!

Most people don't even take full advantage of 1080p on a 50" display. But this is the Front Projection subforum, 50" is nonsense.


FP setups commonly have seating 2x-3x the image height, and this is well within the range taking advantage of resolutions higher than 1080p. Look at the chart for 120", it's 15ft and closer that resolutions greater than 1080p become resolvable.


I sit 15ft from a 159" screen, so it's obvious we haven't maxed out the resolution for seating within SMPTE/THX specs. Stranger's points are right on though, I'm not sure this will be happening any time soon.