[jefftodd]

For the last 12 years, I've been watching everything (TV, DVD's, etc. ) on a Sony 27 XBR set, from about 8-10' away. I recently moved and now have a room in the basement to devote to a larger TV. I don't watch a lot of movies on DVD - maybe 2-3 a year, but a fair amount of TV (Directv), so I'm leaning toward 4.3. I don't currently have HD anything, and untill there's a few more channels, I'm not really interested in it.


So my questions is this: if I went from a 27" tv at 8-10' away, to a 80-90" tv at 12-13' away (by way of a NEC LT240kor similar), using S-video connections - would I see an improvement over plain old TV? I don't want to go backwards in picture quality and I'm concerned I might by not taking the step to HDTV at the same time.


Thanks in advance for helping this newbie!


Jeff

 

[Ian Fleet]

There's no comparison. Watching films on a large screen is the way to watch films.

I believe the LT 240 and LT 260 are being phased out. A friend of mine who installs them in local Hospitals got a LT 260 for a great price.

Forget the S-video in get a Momitsu v880 DVD player and connect it via the VGA in with a component breakout cable or Adapter called a ADP-CV1. The second possibility is a DVI to VGA adapter from the DVI out of the Momitsu player. You'll get better picture resolution with the VGA in on a NEC projector.

 

[snowmoon]

Um... DirectTV I think will be the weak link in your video chain. At 80 or 90 inches wide the compression artifacts will probably drive you crazy. The PJ will not be a technical step back, but will probably be a perceived step back in PQ.

 

[Ian Fleet]

Sorry I read your thread too quickly.

If you only watch two or three DVD's a year maybe it's not a good idea for a projector.

The problem with cable and projectors is resolution. I think the resolution of cable and VHS is something approaching 400 lines of resolution. The screen can be large enough to show all defects. I have a cable TV capture card in my PC that's scaling a picture into my projector. The picture is adequate at best. I suppose with my projector I've become a resolution Junkie. I've seen HDTV and the resolution was just as good or better in some cases as DVD's

 

[borromini]

I would have an easier time recommending a projector had you said you were planning on DirecTV's HD subscription and/or DVD viewing. But since you have no interest in HDTV at this time, I agree with the other posters. And if you're not going to use it for DVDs as well then you're better off with something smaller in size since standard definition TV looks bad when projected large onto a screen or wall. I'll just proceed with the reasons why you may want to reconsider HDTV:


I have a Sony HS20 projecting a 100" image of DTV's HD signal and it looks gorgeous. The HD receiver is a Samsung connected to the projector via HDMI and it's also connected to an OTA antenna for local HD network broadcasts. I don't use it for all my TV viewing but for sports in HD, Discovery HD, PBS HD, concerts on Bravo HD and HDNet's offerings...it's well worth it for me.

 

[jefftodd]

So if I'm understanding everyone correctly, I should pass on a projector if I'm just going to use it for normal Directv, playstation, and the occaisional DVD? If that's the case, what's my best bet for that type of use? (talking similar money) CRT Projection?

 

[Ian Fleet]

I bought my projector because I immediately saw the potential When I first bought a DVD player. I was hooked on the resolution thing. I had to blow the picture up and experience the big screen.

You don't appear hooked into higher resolution so even a RPTV is a waist of dollars. The two, I think have to go hand in hand.

My regular TV looks fine with the amount of resolution It's getting.

The minute you get into better resolution gear and inputing lower resolution signals results in a step back not forward with that kind of gear as previously said.

You can also make the same analogy with audio gear.

I'm not into spending the bucks on high end audio gear. I just want a clear undistorted sound with some touches of bass compression.

Some of my friends however are hooked into hearing the precise sound and will go to great lengths to achieve it. I can even see it in their faces when they listen.

So I guess that makes me a visual kinda guy.

 

[Marissadad]

If you don't want to blow the Direct TV signal all the way up to fill your screen, projector's have a "native" or "pass through" mode which will map your image 1:1 and make the image look pretty good. On my pj, a SD signal projected in this manner still gives me about a 70" diagonal 4:3 image (on a 110" diagonal screen) and all the crappy artifacts are less noticeable.

 

[Insider]

If you can find someone in your area who has a projector and Directv or cable, see if they'll let you check out how it appears on their setup.


Personally, I like watching my Directv (non-HD) on the large screen. I find myself zooming my z1 out so the 4:3 image fills up the largest area of my 70 inch wide screen. My next projector will be 4:3. If you like playing video games, you'll appreciate the larger 4:3 image as a lot of games are still in that format. Of course, once you start watching a projector, your DVD viewing habits will probably increase, mine did.


Sure, there's tradeoffs, it's a matter of whether you can accept them. I'm content to accept some visible flaws for the benefit of a larger image. I'm also willing to accept slightly grey bars above and below letterboxed movies. I see them now even though the z1 is native 16x9 since I have a 70x70 pull down screen that's impractical to mask against ambient light.


Alright, I could tape felt or something to the unused portions, but I'd rather not risk damaging the surface or the roll-up mechanism by getting it jammed.

 

[hdkhang]

Don't forget lamp costs of projectors... many people only use their projectors for movies, major sporting events etc. Regular day to day tv watching will kill you in the lamp department.


Cheers...

Duy-Khang Hoang

 

[Marissadad]

Quote:

Originally posted by hdkhang Don't forget lamp costs of projectors... Cheers... Duy-Khang Hoang

Or you can do what I do: I toss a quarter in a vase for every hour of lamp time. My roommate also tosses in a couple of extra quarters each evening. Hopefully the bulb will last 1200 hours and I'll have the cash to buy one, if not, it certainly takes a big bite out of the replacement cost. So far I'm ahead of schedule with roughly 800 hours and over $200 saved up.

 

[Chris Gerhard]

I went from an 27" Sony XBR and 25" PVM-2530 to the XBR910 and I am planning on adding an inexpensive projector also. I also watch mostly DirecTV with about 50% HDTV now, including D-VHS and HD TiVo. In my opinion, you are unlikely to be happy with SD DirecTV and any projector. I find I prefer SD DirecTV on a 27" monitor slightly over my XBR910 HDTV although it is watchable on either. My new projector will not be used for SD DirecTV at all. It may be in the future DirecTV will have greater bandwidth and offer better SD picture quality but that is not the case now. Although I didn't really complain about it with my 27" monitor, a big screen makes it almost unwatchable in my opinion.


Chris

 

[jenkinsear1]

The question is what do you mean by "go back in picture quality." SD-DirecTV does have artifacts... but so does analog cable, digital cable, and every other SD source. Blowing up the image to 80-90" will make those more noticable, but won't introduce new ones.


I want to second the point made by hdkhang about lamp life if you will use this for your primary TV viewing. Many projectors state a lamp life of ~2000 hours, but your mileage will definately vary. At $300+/pop you need to factor that in to your real cost. Personally I believe that FP is a GREAT match for a home theater or entertainment room that is not used for primary tv viewing, can be light controlled, etc. There are probably better options if this will be your primary TV outside of those conditions.

 

[Eyleron]

Snowmoon said: "The PJ will not be a technical step back, but will probably be a perceived step back in PQ."


I take that to mean, Snow is acknowledging that while new artifiacts are not necessarily being generated, a viewer will notice that problems with a low res signal more.


For instance, take a photo on your computer that's just a few hundred pixels wide. Blow it up....way up....and you'll see blurry jaggies, exaggerated jpeg compression artifacts, etc. You may not notice those things when the photo is at original size and a few inches wide on he screen. The concept is often called "magnifying the flaws."


I'd content that actually new artifacts WILL be introduced when the image is scaled. Scaling artifacts, deinterlacing problems, etc. YMMV depending on what scaling solutions are used.


Regarding 4:3 vs 16:9, I notice that even as recently as a year ago, many publications suggested it was a tossup between the two. But lately, I see so many NTSC broadcasts with black bars! Which aspect ratio is best for TV might depend on the user's preference for new shows or reruns of Leave it to Beaver.