[jeffoo]

Hi Folks,


I am very new to this and I am planning to buy a new front projector for my home theatre. Currently I have a 61" rear projection Toshiba television and I know absolutely nothing about front projectors.


Here is my question...I am looking at the Benq 7200. It is native 4:3 and 16:9 selectable. I am about to build a DIY screen in 16:9 format, should I be looking for a different projector or will this one be fine? How would this work? If I watched a DVD movie in 16:9 I am assuming this would fit my screen properly. If I watched television or played xbox in 4:3, would the picture go off the screen at the top and bottom, or would I have black marks on the sides of my picture?


Sorry if this seems really stupid but I am not sure how this works.


Thanks for your help. If anyone could recommend a projector that would better suite my needs it would be greatly appreciated. I have a room that is 25' x 25' in a basement with no, or little ambient light. I will be using this for DVD movies, some xbox, and some hockey and football games through my regular digital cable box. Possibly HDTV down the road. Is there a better projector out there for me??


Thanks

Jeff

 

[craig john]

Check out this link on Projector Central. Its an excellent discussion of this subject. The site has an extensive amount of information to help you make a projector choice.


Craig

 

[jeffoo]

Thanks Craig! I had actually just found that exact thread in another post!


Thanks for you help!


Jeff

 

[guitarman]

I think there's some DVD players that will show a 4.3 image within a 16.9 frame with black bars on the sides. Look into the latest Panasonics and the JVC's re window boxing 4.3.

 

[mitchell_gusat]

I just culled two previous posts into this reply - thus some redundancy.

In general, a native 4:3 wastes 45% of its light and effective pixels on black bars for 2.35 movies.

OTOH the 16:9 is not only a perfect match for most movies (80% shot in 1.85) and HDTV content, but it's the most reasonable compromise between the extremes. I.e., both the 2.35 and the 1.33 content will each waste only 25% of PJ's scarce resources - light, pixels and optics. Yes, it's personal taste, yet common sense also often requires smaller images for the 1.33 video content, commonly clips and TV where the cameras are dynamically used (moved, panned, relayed).


Specifically comparing the 4:3 XGA of this BenQ against two equivalent in price LCDs (Z2 and Pana 500), both native 16:9. => Form factor & effective resolution: 4:3 @ 1024x768 vs. 16:9 @ 1280x720.

For computer imaging, old TV and some digital photography I use 4:3, whereas for movies and HDTV it's solely a 16:9 game. A 2.35 anamorphic movie makes use of just 0.4Mpix of the XGA, vs. 0.7Mpix on the 500/z2; that's nearly half.


The 16:9 is perfect match for (a) HDTV and (b) 3/4 of all the movies (shot in 1.85); (c) it's about the best possible match for 2.35-2.4 movies; (d) in the middle, with 25% overhead for both 1.33 (rare) and 2.35 movies. By comparison, the 4:3 format at any resolution reigns as king of the wasteland in the movie world, unless one plans to exclusively watch legacy TV - in which case a PJ is arguably the wrong imaging device.


To conclude, a 4:3 will work fine for TV and PC games; OTOH, it will show horiz. blackbars with 99% of the movie material. Half of the 4:3 handicap can still be recovered with a Panamorph lens ($5-700).


Mitch-

 

[Garasaki]

Plus most PC/console games these days can be played in 16:9 mode as well....