[Mark Laarson]

Wow! That thing projected a WIDE image! It was somewhere near 10 feet - 120 inches wide! Hmm... i think the only thing it had going for itself was the width/brightness.

Scenes with even a small amount of black in them looked so washed out that i was amazed - the contrast had to be absolutely the worst i've seen. Even though mine loses out a bit in some scenes because i've set the brightness way down, mine still takes the cake in contrast! And its a measly 1030Q1!!

Screen-door effect - i have to admit, i had to look just a little closely to find that effect - but once i saw it, it drove me nuts. That, combined with the chroma bug, and i was seeing things the rest of the audience wasn't!

Last but not the least - in fact the greatest annoyance - they were using it to project a letterbox image inside a 4:3 screen, and the grey bars were so bright they distracted from the picture! Even my little old 1030Q1, set as it is to display a 4:3 image, doesn't have those annoying bars - widescreen is widescreen, not something else.

Granted, the image was HUGE - and it was a presentation projector (Optima something), but it had too many issues. The contrast was the major one - all scenes looked washed out - only the ones shot at the beach (American Pie 2) looked ok. I shudder to think of watching POTA on that one!

 

[Daniel Hutnicki]

I have a ten year old Mercedes which runs very nice. I test drove a KIA today and while it drives pretty good, it doesnt have leather and the interior is not luxurious as my older Mercedes. The Mercedes has a smoother ride. Once you drive in the Mercedes you cant live with a Kia.


Maybe we should compare apples to apples. Comparing a CRT to a presentation Optima projector doesnt prove anything.

 

[Mr.Poindexter]

I have an NEC LT150 and an XG-110LC. The LT150 isn't as nice as the XG-110LC, but it isn't exactly hard to look at. Sort of like downgrading from Michelle Pfieffer to oh, say, Mimi Rogers. Yeah, a big drop but still a huge increase above what the average person has and only worth complaining about if you have had better.


I will stick with the CRT for HDTV and movies, but I am keeping the DLP for computer use. Unlike CRT, the digital projectors are immune to screen burn, which is a major plus for computer users.

 

[nrubenstein]

I'm getting an 8ft wide image out of my 1270Q

 

[MYoung]

Yeah, digitals are also great for games with static images and games prone to display colors in specific areas. I watched Fight Club last night and it really is sweet to have scenes in black actually be black as opposed to grey. It really conveys mood. I gotta say though, you push an entry level CRT to display at that distance and you will be seeing scan lines which suck almost as much as screen door effect.

 

[Mark Laarson]

Hey! No flames man! I was just posting my thoughts, and i DID say it was a presentation PJ. My CRT is heavier, bigger, and less bright. I was trying to say all these were outweighed in my eyes by the PQ.

 

[Daniel Hutnicki]

Sorry Mark


Didnt mean to start anything. We on the digital side of the forum understand that even the cheapest crts will beat out alot of the digital in picture quality and in most cases black levels on the digitals dont compare.

However, after saying that, their are alot of digital projectors that do have a great picutre quality and if the black levels arent as great, they dont take anything away from the image. Yes they are pricey compared to some of the crts, but then again its not a fair comparison as it seems to me that most people who buy crts, dont buy new. Unfortunately due to the nature of digital projectors and the fact that its only been a couple of years since high quality digitals have been in the market, we typically have to pay full costs.


On the other hand, during Cedia, a William Phelps calibrated JVC Dila G-15 with a Vigatec and an anamorphic lens looked so outstanding that it compared to some of the high end and costly CRTs in display


So we might not be there yet, but we are catching up