Get an exclusive sneak peek into our new project. >>> Click Here
Our native mobile app has a new name: Fora Communities. Learn more.

Is it worth the extra $400+ to go to 1024x768 from 854x480?

1487 Views 10 Replies 9 Participants Last post by xynz, Mar 5, 2005

julia_lunquist

Discussion Starter · Feb 28, 2005

And in the case of Optoma, you can get their EZPro 739 for only $325 more than the H31, which is only 854x480.

In general, does a 1024x768 really look that much better than a 854x480 if the image size is around 110" wide?

Save

Status: Not open for further replies.

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

AnthonyP

· #2 · Feb 28, 2005

Quote:

Sometimes I forget that this is an international forum. My strong belief in solar is solely for those who can use it.

I understand that, and I think on a individual basis per home add-on, it is good everywhere, I think all homes should have it even here, might not help on some days, but for others it would be good. And you don't know blinding until you go out on a sunny day after some new snow

I would say yes, XGA is what I consider a minimum standard

Save

Rockyy

· #3 · Feb 28, 2005

XGA will always look better- all things being equal... That does'nt mean a PB6200 will look better than a Optoma 31 because all things are not equal in that case.

XGA also has less SDE which is very important to me. Also most any decent XGA will look better than almost any VGA when veiwing HD.

Save

julia_lunquist

Discussion Starter · #4 · Feb 28, 2005

Quote:

Originally posted by Rockyy
XGA will always look better- all things being equal... That does'nt mean a PB6200 will look better than a Optoma 31 because all things are not equal in that case.

XGA also has less SDE which is very important to me. Also most any decent XGA will look better than almost any VGA when veiwing HD.

What about comparing apples to apples? These are both the same brand (EZPro 739 versus H31). I've heard fantastic things about the H31, but is the EZPro that much better? Also, I am using this only for movies. Is it true the EZPro 739 is for business and the H31 is more for movies?

Save

LENNY 2112

· #5 · Feb 28, 2005

I believe the EZPro line is more for business and is a "Class room" style pj. From what I hear through reviews is the H31 will benefit more as a HT pj and has a great color pallet and 3000:1 contrast. DLP=nice bright colors. It took me a while to get over the whole resolution thing, but from what I hear the PQ through the DVI is best in class at just over a grand $. I just ordered the H31 saturday and this is my first pj so I will post a very unbiased and newbie review.

Save

jedi35

· #6 · Feb 28, 2005

My H31 just arrived today. It's still sitting in the box on my theater floor. I went for the H31 because of the fact that it was designed for home theater use. When veiwing XGA, you don't see the whole 1024 X 768 anyway for widescreen images, since that resolution produces a 4:3 image. Now, if you have a panamorph lens, that's another story.

The H31 has so many improvements over the 739. The H31 has the DarkChip2 dlp technology for a 3000:1 CR(it's still over 2000:1 when calibrated), a nice fast 4X color wheel for reduced rainbows and superior color, advanced screen aspect ratio controls, and is said to have a much better build quality than other pjs in this price range. I'm also glad to finally get a dvi display device for my HD sources.

Save

xynz

· #7 · Mar 1, 2005

If you're going to play computer games with your projector, the XGA is definitely worth the extra expense. You can set your graphics card to the native resolution of the projector and the PQ is breathtaking.

Part of the time, I live in NZ. So, a significant portion of my DVD collection is PAL. In 16x9 format, PAL is 1024x576....which is a significant improvement over NTSC's 854x480. When I can get them [(or can wait for them to come out

], I prefer to get my DVDs in PAL (region 2, 4).

PAL PQ is significantly better than NTSC....not just because of the 43% increase in resolution, but also because the color accuracy* and 'punch' is much better too. Whenever I go back to NZ, I am always amazed by the outstanding PQ in OTA PAL TV.

Cheers,

XYNZ

*PAL afeciandos sometimes refer to NTSC as "Never Twice the Same Color"

See less See more

Save

triodeuser

· #8 · Mar 1, 2005

Quote:

Originally posted by julia_lunquist
In general, does a 1024x768 really look that much better than a 854x480 if the image size is around 110" wide?

a 1024x768 image at 16:9 gives you essentially a 1024x576 native

Depending on the projector and your viewing distance, 1024 by 576 is possibly a minimum resolution for a 110" wide (not diagonal) screen.

I'm using an LCD 1024 x 768 on a 92" wide screen. Viewing distance on my front row is right at 13' 8". If you lean all the way forward, you can see pixelation - however, it disappears when you lean back.

However, although I'm not really that familiar with DLP, I believe they stretch that somewhat further.

That's a pretty good sized screen width - you not only need to be considering resolution - at that screen width, you need to be certain you're bright enough - in real lumens, not the manufacturers specs _ big grin_

Regards

Ken L

See less See more

Save

zafdor

· #9 · Mar 2, 2005

Somehow I gotta believe source material is a factor too. Could be I'm just old fashioned, but whenever 'upconvert' is spoken, it lands upon my eardrums as 'making up images that do not exist in the data'. Even the budget pjs will do native DVD resouloution.

Save

entropy

· #10 · Mar 4, 2005

Quote:

Originally posted by julia_lunquist
And in the case of Optoma, you can get their EZPro 739 for only $325 more than the H31, which is only 854x480. In general, does a 1024x768 really look that much better than a 854x480 if the image size is around 110" wide?

Indeed, you can pay more for more resolution. But you're likely to get a slower colorwheel, so you might be more likely to see rainbows, with a white section, which will make your picture brighter, but will also wash out your colors. For home theatre use, resolution is not the only factor to consider. You might be more unhappy if you pay more to see rainbows, washed-out colors, and grey "blacks" than you would be if you paid less and saw some some jaggies.

~ Kiran

Save

xynz

· #11 · Mar 5, 2005

Why would the color wheel be slower? Because it's bigger? I understand that if it is bigger, for the same angular velocity, the linear velocity at the wheel rim would be faster ...but I don't understand why that would be a problem....or does the faster linear speed at the rim introduce timing/control/stability issues?

Cheers,

X

Quote:

Originally posted by entropy
Indeed, you can pay more for more resolution. But you're likely to get a slower colorwheel, so you might be more likely to see rainbows, with a white section, which will make your picture brighter, but will also wash out your colors. For home theatre use, resolution is not the only factor to consider. You might be more unhappy if you pay more to see rainbows, washed-out colors, and grey "blacks" than you would be if you paid less and saw some some jaggies.

~ Kiran

See less See more

Save

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

Status: Not open for further replies.

Top Contributors this Month