View Full Version : So, Why Don't YOU Own A Projector?
R Harkness
08-29-05, 11:31 AM
The reason this isn't in the projector forum is because it's aimed at people who HAVE NOT bought a Front Projector, for whatever reason.
The thread title comes from the fact I was recently, yet again, impressed by a front projector, and from my own project over the past year of deciding on my next display. I got a plasma several years ago because of two factors: I was blown away by the image quality and "had to have one" and also the fact the plasma was best suited to solving the problems of my small viewing room. It was a great choice (as if I haven't written my head off about the thing over the years, here).
Then, after becoming too frustrated by the limitations of that room - couldn't go for much bigger screen sizes, limited options for seating (only one or two people could get a direct view seat) I gave up on that room and decided to use another one. (Currently my high-end audio listening room....which is becoming a victim of encroaching Home Theater).
Suddenly I had room for a screen size of up to perhaps 100." PROJECTOR TIME! After all, front projectors are supposed to be the pinnacle home theater experience.
So I upped my interest in projectors, checked many out (from $1,500 models up to, for kicks, $40,000 models, including the Sony Qualia). Just last week I was watching some Hi-Def on a Sim2 DLP projector. It wasn't even a full hi-def res projector but, damn, that was a fine image. It was bright, colorful, punchy, good black level, amazingly detailed and very sharp, despite the 110" size of the image. Add that sheer size in and it really comes close to a you-are-there vibe.
And yet...even as great as it was, even as great as any of the projectors I've seen have performed, I don't quite get the level of thrill I do out of seeing the same material on a big-arsed plasma (like the Panasonic 65" of course). After a while I start to ask myself "this is great, but...I wonder what it will look like on the plasma."
When I got home I watched the same HD demo on my 42" ED plasma. The hit in image size was obviously significant, but there was that X-factor of the added vividness, richness and density of the image that was similarly thrilling in it's own way.
That is one of the reasons why I'm pretty sure the Panasonic 65" 1080p is in my future, despite that I have room for a projector. With the lights down, that 65" is going to look plenty big, but will also come with the "x-factors" I see in the plasma image. I'm going to keep looking at projectors while waiting for the Panny 65" to appear, though.
That's a round-a-bout way of getting to my question:
For those who haven't got a projector I'm curious about your rational (which I know will be much more varied than my own...cost/room limitations etc).
1. Do you lust after a projector?
2. Why haven't you bought one?
3. Do you prefer any other display technologies over a projector?
Cheers,
10secbee
08-29-05, 11:42 AM
I bought a dlp projector and was very impressed with the picture. The only problem I had was to get the best picture it ad to be very dark in the room. I just didnt want to live in a dungeon when watching football. If I ever get a dedicated theater room I will buying one. LATER
cougar75
08-29-05, 11:42 AM
Waiting on the future (and affordable) 3-chip units to arrive. I will still have plasmas in the house, though. :)
krlock2
08-29-05, 11:42 AM
i still get a massive thrill out of my projector... but want a plasma or lcd for viewing in the daytime, or an occasional break from the pj.
projectors are best bang for the buck, most impressive to my friends, and, actually, more or less the best thing i have ever purchased. but you need a good environment to get the most out of it and enjoy it (that is, a light controlled room which is pretty dark), and not everyone wants to sit in a darkened room.
my view is always that pjs and flat screens are better at different things.
valkyrie
08-29-05, 11:48 AM
I had a projector, but moved to a new place. I think both the projector and a plasma have their place (sometimes in the same house/room). Projectors are GREAT if you want big. I had a nice theater setup, with tiered seats, and it was really fantastic for having friends over for movies. Now, I'm in a smaller place, and I sold off all the HT gear to start over with a smaller, more intimate setting. The plasma has a better quality picture, at least up close, and since I'm only 7-10' away, it's hard to justify the projector (IMHO, you need more than about 10' to fully utilize one). So...given my current arrangment:
1) No
2) Had one, now going with plasma (and not regretting it)
3) Not really, I think projectors (front) and plasmas are the two best technologies out there. Best, brightest pictures around.
dwangtp
08-29-05, 11:49 AM
I don't like projection as much because the reflecting factor brings down the experience for me.
With direct view displays, the image is generated/illuminated in front of your eyes. With projection, light hits a screen and bounces back at you. I don't know if its light dispersion that bothers me, but all I know is LCD's and plasmas have much more impact on me than projectors do.
It's the difference between looking at a light, and looking where light shines. The light source is brillant while where the light shines is just visible. That's the difference to me.
1. No, and yes. High-end projectors make me salivate from the tech geek side of me having worked at a professional AV shop. Having it in my home, is not what I'm looking for.
2. Money, or lack there of.
3. LCD is my favorite. I know. I know. Everyone complains about the black levels, but honestly 1) it doesn't bother me, 2) current models have good CR, 3) I don't like to watch movies in pitch black unless I'm at a theatre. Besides, LCD is one of the brightest displays available which makes me like them alot.
[QUOTE=krlock2]i still get a massive thrill out of my projector... but want a plasma or lcd for viewing in the daytime, or an occasional break from the pj.
projectors are best bang for the buck, most impressive to my friends, and, actually, more or less the best thing i have ever purchased. but you need a good environment to get the most out of it and enjoy it (that is, a light controlled room which is pretty dark), and not everyone wants to sit in a darkened room.
my view is always that pjs and flat screens are better at different things.[/QUOTE]
I completely agree. for best results, you need several different displays. The PJ is perfect for home theater, the plasma for the family room or bedroom wall, the direct tube for SD, etc. Depends on your needs, space and budget.
Having one display is like having a swiss army knife. It will do lots of different tasks - but I'd rather have a full box of tools. ;)
R Harkness
08-29-05, 12:10 PM
[QUOTE=Mit07]
Having one display is like having a swiss army knife. It will do lots of different tasks - but I'd rather have a full box of tools. ;)[/QUOTE]
Agreed. I was also sick of looking for a display that had to be a swiss army knife in terms of being able to watch a good SD, DVD and HD signal on the thing. The Panny ED certainly is a terrific swiss army knife on that count.
What surprises me is that now that I have the room to go specialized I still might not get a projector. Front projectors are supposed to be a no-brainer in the HT world: you want the "best" viewing experience, you've got the room? Get a FP.
And yet after many comparisons I still find myself leaning toward plasma (albeit a big one) for my dedicated movie-viewing experience.
alsgoods
08-29-05, 12:15 PM
Hello all.....I purchased a sim 2 300 in january........130 inch stewart screen.......SD looks increadible.....dvd looks amazing(depending on dvd)......but HD....OMG......once you get used to such a massive beautifully detailed picture.....no going back ever to smaller displays
>>1. Do you lust after a projector?
2. Why haven't you bought one?
3. Do you prefer any other display technologies over a projector?<<
1) yes
2) lack of dedicated room
3) no, bacuse the size of the front projected image more than makes up for any minor deficiences one could find in it vis-a-vis a direct view device such as plasma
Kid Red
08-29-05, 12:33 PM
1) No
2) price, space and practicality based on my space
3) Not really. I think if I had the the room and budget, I might add one.
Kal Rubinson
08-29-05, 12:41 PM
[QUOTE=R Harkness]
For those who haven't got a projector I'm curious about your rational (which I know will be much more varied than my own...cost/room limitations etc).
1. Do you lust after a projector?
2. Why haven't you bought one?
3. Do you prefer any other display technologies over a projector?
Cheers,[/QUOTE]
1. No but am considering it for another system.
2. Room conditions. Except for specific evenings with a movie, we use the PDP for general TV in a fairly well-lit room, so that we can do other things (reading, sewing, etc.) while the "TV" is on. Frankly, there's little on TV that fully occupies our attention, so it is visual background music most of the time.
3. For our situation, the 50" PDP does fine. Projector would be less useful and more obtrusive an installation. Other technologies appeal less than the PDP.
Kal
semigolfer
08-29-05, 01:17 PM
[QUOTE=R Harkness]
For those who haven't got a projector I'm curious about your rational (which I know will be much more varied than my own...cost/room limitations etc).
1. Do you lust after a projector?
2. Why haven't you bought one?
3. Do you prefer any other display technologies over a projector?
Cheers,[/QUOTE]
1. Yes, a new one, my existing home theater room has a 25 years old 84" front tube projector. Front projectors have immersion factors that existing plasma sizes don't even come close to. (keep in mind I haven't seen the 65" in person yet.) While plasma is capable of providing a "looking through the window" sensation. Projectors give what I call you the "being there" experience. Football games with life size guys are incredible - add surround sound and I'm on the field. And IMHO, the projected image, at least from tube technology is the closest to film I've yet to see, and I do enjoy film (Ishould have used the word "movies" here rather than film - as LD/DVD are digitized) (as my laserdisk and DVD collection) would verify.
2. Just like I did with plasma I'm waiting for the technology, to finally plateau. Also specifically for screen sizes of 100-110" (which my home theater room can accomodate) I want 1080p. On a tube projector 9" that is I could get it today - but tubes are just about gone, and I'm waiting for the maturity of the newer technologies (DLP, LCD, SXRD or LCos) to reach some value plateau but unfortunately it looks like it will require more time, which may take another year or two since the 1080p units (exempting SXRD which is here today) are expected soon. The Qualia projector is more than I want to spend to watch TV.
The only other reason I can envision as to why not buy a projector would the your inability to control light - outdoor, or high ambient indoor light.
3. I can't answer this question in a paragraph - too many variables. But suffice it to say I can't fit a projector in most rooms in my small house, nor can I control light in a fashion that could pass the WAF - exactly what is wrong with black out curtains in all the rooms.
I own a projector, but I am now looking at lcd flat panels. My panasonic 300U looks awsome at 106", but I don't usually have the time to watch a whole movie at one sitting. It is just much easier for me to stay in the living room and watch 30 minutes or so than to go in the theater, turn on all the equiptment, adjust the lighting, close the doors for sound proofing etc. There is simply no substitute for screen size when wanting to really enjoy a film in my opinion, but either laziness or time factors push me towards direct view.
jacksonian
08-29-05, 01:51 PM
[QUOTE=R Harkness]
When I got home I watched the same HD demo on my 42" ED plasma. The hit in image size was obviously significant, but there was that X-factor of the added vividness, richness and density of the image that was similarly thrilling in it's own way.
1. Do you lust after a projector?
2. Why haven't you bought one?
3. Do you prefer any other display technologies over a projector?
[/QUOTE]
I have both, the screen for my projector rolls down inches in front of the 50" Plasma. I went with the pj first for cost and WOW! factor reasons. The big screen experience blew me away. But the main problem was wanting to watch Saturday football games and enjoy the view of the trees out the window at the same time.
Now that I have both, if I'm watching the plasma, I prefer the picture for the bright,vivid, rich image you described but find myself wanting a bigger size. If I watch the pj, I love the size, but find myself longing for the punch of the plasma.
I think the best compromise for me will be that 100" LG plasma! :eek:
I'm actually hoping for a little of both. In the next few years I'll have a 65"+ plasma on that wall and hopefully a brighter pj with one of those black screens.
Basically, I watch movies on the pj and sports/tv on the plasma. :D
eandylee
08-29-05, 02:05 PM
40"-60" Plasma for living/family/bedroom for most of the TV viewing.
100" or larger Front Projector for Home Theater
I have 42" plasma in family room mainly for TV, and 100" DLP FP in Media Room for serious HT and Music.
PooperScooper
08-29-05, 02:12 PM
1) I don't lust after one, but most likely will get one for next video upgrade. I'd like to go to a 80" or so screen and not have a 200lb display.
2) Too lazy to wall mount plasma and rearrange HT gear. And I just finished putting together a separate 2-channel audio room and have no $$$ left. :)
3) Love my P50, but I don't see reasonable logistics (for me) with 80" and greater flat panels. Easier to swap PJs than huge flat panels, too.
larry
krlock2
08-30-05, 05:34 AM
[QUOTE=alsgoods]Hello all.....I purchased a sim 2 300 in january........130 inch stewart screen.......SD looks increadible.....dvd looks amazing(depending on dvd)......but HD....OMG......once you get used to such a massive beautifully detailed picture.....no going back ever to smaller displays[/QUOTE]
i agree... my primary interest is in front projection... no going back.
i am seriously thinking of adding a flat screen to replace my CRT. but upgrading my fp setup is certainly my main priority.
the amount of times i have caught a small crowd outside my house when i have forgot to close the blinds..... :)
krlock2.
HDClueless
08-30-05, 04:31 PM
1. No I do not lust after a FP.
2.1 I don't have a rectangular basement.
2.2 I don't like concept of replacing $$$ light bulbs.
2.3 I don't like to deal with screen.
2.4 I don't like to have to turn on audio component separately.
2.5 Too lame/stupid to mount the FP properly.
I undertand all these issues can be solved if you have $$$.
(My good friend has a system where these are all automated - it is a system to
behold - better than my local movie theater.)
I have brought home a few FP (and screen) from work to play with (mostly for PS2 games). When they have the massive layoffs at work, I should have kept a few of
these FP's. Nobody would miss them anyway. :rolleyes:
Nah... Don't want to steal. :p
All of you who don't lust after a PJ, check this out....
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=575351
I have both. We have a dedicated theater w/ front projector in the basement, and a plasma upstairs in the living room.
Yes, the picture on the front projector is fantastic, and we love watching movies & hi-def on it, but it has no business as the primary display in our living room. We have lots of windows in our living room looking out to a nice view, so we don't feel like darkening our living room whenever it's light out to watch TV.
Think about this...every morning I watch about 15-20 minutes of TV before I head out the door. Do you think I want to close all the curtains, darken the room, and fire up the stereo system every morning for this? Come on, get real! Front projectors are great but they have their place.
nataraj
08-30-05, 10:06 PM
1. Do you lust after a projector?
Yes, I do. My next one will be a 720p ... and then a 1080p ... and then a 3 chip 1080p.
2. Why haven't you bought one?
Well, Since I've bought several over the past few years :D
3. Do you prefer any other display technologies over a projector?
Depends. Plasma is good for bed room. RPTV is good for the family room. FP is good in a home theatre.
Guess, not the right forum, after all ;)
[QUOTE=nataraj] My next one will be a 720p ... and then a 1080p ... and then a 3 chip 1080p.
[/QUOTE]
Is your current one a 480p?????
Ou8thisSN
08-30-05, 11:20 PM
a projector is still, i think, the pinnacle, no matter how big a PDP gets. I know even when we get a 65" or another large PDP, it will still be like "watching TV", where as going upstairs is "watching a movie". Sure the picture isnt as bright (but it is now plenty punchy with the high power screen), but it feels more organic, in a way plasma never does. I see it really as apples and oranges.
the 'experience' of going into a darkened theater room and the anticipation of a projector warming up and suddenly you see the image (the huge image) on the screen... its still quite breath-taking. somehow i dont think i'd ever be as entralled just dimming the lights and turning on a giant screen tv.
someone wrote that they just dont like the way a reflected image looks, i feel the exact opposite. i think its that reflective character that gives front projection its organic look that really separates it from all other display technologies.
EarlofSeattle
08-31-05, 04:44 AM
1. Do you lust after a projector?
No.
2. Why haven't you bought one?
If I could devote one whole room to nothing but home theater then a projector might be feasible. As it is, my tv is in the living room where people come and go at all hours of the day. A projector just doesn't seem like the best choice for that. Plasma on the other hand looks good in light or darkness. In short, plasma fits my lifestyle where a projector might not.
3. Do you prefer any other display technologies over a projector?
I like plasma best. Sure it has it's drawbacks but plasma looks consistently good, day or night. Plus, I like having the TV all in one piece, rather than dealing with the projector and screen--although I do see the definite advantage to having it that way. Also, I just plain like the PQ of plasma better than the projectors that I've seen.
No lusting here, I have a Sanyo Z3 projector and a 50" 50U Panny plasma, with a touch of the remote the power screen lowers down in front of the wall mounted plasma.
Its very slick, the best of both worlds.
And since projectors and plasma's are not total mainstream "YET" its always fun for me to see peoples reactions when they come over to my house and see my set-up. The reactions are very cool,,,,, thats the icing on the cake !!!!!!
Davyo
[QUOTE=Ou8thisSN] i think its that reflective character that gives front projection its organic look that really separates it from all other display technologies.[/QUOTE]
Interesting point, Ou8thisSN; one that I also wanted to make.
The vast majority of what we see around us has reflective character. Very little has pure emissive character, unless one likes to stare into a light bulb or into the sun (some do, anyway :rolleyes: ).
We evolved looking at reflected light, so projected images SHOULD feel more natural.
They do feel more natural to me.
Emissive displays show more pop, but I can see how this "unnatural pop" may turn some people off.
I second those who say: plasma to the bedroom or family room, where it will be the TV that it is, and PJ to the dedicated HT room.
john doran
08-31-05, 08:43 AM
[QUOTE=R Harkness]For those who haven't got a projector I'm curious about your rational (which I know will be much more varied than my own...cost/room limitations etc).
1. Do you lust after a projector?
2. Why haven't you bought one?
3. Do you prefer any other display technologies over a projector?
Cheers,[/QUOTE]
1. i used to.
2. i got a plasma and fell in love with the vibrance and depth of the image it displayed. after that, i simply could never get excited about what invariably strikes me as the flatness of reflected images.
3. plasma. if i could get the 102" sammy, i would be set for life.
Patrick TX
08-31-05, 09:57 AM
Not lusting here either. I have ALWAYS wanted a good FP setup, and finally have one. Almost all of the current technolgies have their place. In my Den, it's a 50" Pioneer Plasma. I'm tickled to death. In my room, a 42" Sony RP-LCD. Office, a 32" Sharp Aquos. Kids Game Room, CRT direct view. Last but not least, HT Optoma H78DC3 DLP FP. Now I finally have the cinema effect, 118" of jaw dropping goodness. No lust anymore, my thirst is quenched. Now I can see about becoming a projector geek :)
Mondo1287
08-31-05, 12:32 PM
Today was supposed to be the day when I had finally settled on what to buy. I was all set to get the 42pwd8uk but now I'm not so sure. With all thats going on with the hurricane disaster and gas thats $3.19 I don't think I'll be ordering today anyway. I started looking at projectors though this week, and I'm starting to lean towards getting one of the optoma movietime dv10 units and a big portable screen. I don't watch much TV, except for Sunday night HBO series. I have a blockbuster dvd mail subscription though and do watch a lot of movies and want a big display. I have a small apartment though and an existing large entertainment center with a 27" tube. The entertainment center would perfectly hold a 42" plasma. What I'm thinking though, is leave everything as is, get the movietime dv10 and a portable screen, and set the projector on my coffee table and the screen in front of my entertainment center when I want to watch a movie. Since all I need to do is hide an extension cable under the couch, and run a toslink cable to my audio system, then get the screen out of the closet, there is little setup hassle. Once again I'm stuck...I know I'd be satisfied with the plasma, but I am lusting after the 92" screen I could project. I think I'll be waiting to see what happens with all thats going on, so the wait and indecision continues.
Albert18
08-31-05, 01:01 PM
As a chef once said, I don't cook for people who are expecting a cinnamon roll the size of their head for 50 cents.
I can't believe projectors even have a market except as a novelty item.
mbaxter
08-31-05, 01:09 PM
Good thread, but I have to say that with the new ambient-light rejecting black screens that are hitting the market, the key drawback of front projection may become a non-issue.
It remains to be seen whether any of these black screens from DNP, Screen Innovations, Sony, and Stewart are as effective at rejecting ambient light as the marketing would have us believe. But I think even at this early stage, one thing is already obvious: Deciding between flat panels and front projection is about to become a lot more difficult!
I would like to get a FP someday, but it would have to be in a dedicated room. I've looked into the feasibility of putting one in my current living room, and it just involves too many hoops. Unlike some, my audio system is always in the loop (my plasma is a monitor only), so that's not a consideration. The main thing is light control, adequate room for a large screen, and physical installation.
My wife loves plasma, the bigger the better. She absolutely hates the idea of FP. My brother, who is an achitect, and I were discussing FP one day (he's not a videophile by any means), and his comment was "yeah, but what do you do about the big thing hanging from the ceiling?". So he wasn't even worrie about the screen so much as the physical projector. Another reason for a separate room.
While I love a big image, the way many FP images I've seen just don't impress me like plasma. It may ge less natural, but I guess it's what I'm used to. I have seen a few, a Sim2 300 on, I think, a 120" screen that was pretty impressive. Most of the projectors I've auditioned just looked a little "flat", for lack of a better term.
Next year sometime plasma will be at a sub 10K price for a 65" 1080p display. To match that with FP, you'd have to have a 3 chip dlp or LCoS with 1080p res; good black levels, good contrast, etc. To make it "living room friendly" it would also have to be on something like the Sony ChromaView or DNP screens, in a flexible screen that could be rolled up (preferably). If the projector had a long enough throw that it could be mounted in say a closet at the back of the room, with an opening for the lens, then it could match a plasma for the look of a normal house. You could probably get close to those requirements today, with the Qualia (or the 3 chip Sim2, if it were 1080 res), black screen, etc, but it would cost 30K or more. Granted it would be a much larger image. But for a non-dedicated room I'd rather just get a 60" plus 1080p plasma and sit 8 feet away or so.
Maybe one day. When I get the room that can support it. But it needs to have an image that is impressive in more ways than size.
R Harkness
08-31-05, 03:41 PM
Thanks everyone. I've really enjoyed reading the replies.
Some comments on an issue I find fascinating....
[QUOTE=Ou8thisSN]
a projector is still, i think, the pinnacle, no matter how big a PDP gets. I know even when we get a 65" or another large PDP, it will still be like "watching TV", where as going upstairs is "watching a movie". [/QUOTE]
I agree a projector is certainly the closest to “watching a movie” in terms of mimicking the projected image of a movie theater. Although that doesn’t necessarily speak to the issue of over-all image quality.
[QUOTE=Ou8thisSN] someone wrote that they just dont like the way a reflected image looks, i feel the exact opposite. i think its that reflective character that gives front projection its organic look that really separates it from all other display technologies. [/QUOTE]
And….
[QUOTE=wojtek ]
The vast majority of what we see around us has reflective character. Very little has pure emissive character, unless one likes to stare into a light bulb or into the sun (some do, anyway).
We evolved looking at reflected light; so projected images SHOULD feel more natural.
They do feel more natural to me.
Emissive displays show more pop, but I can see how this "unnatural pop" may turn some people off. [/QUOTE]
These are good points. On one hand there is the HT-Centric discussion of which image best duplicates what one sees in the theater. It’s hard to argue against front projection winning that race.
But then there is the issue of what picture quality means over-all – which expands beyond “looks like film.” These days not only is projected film a reference, “real life” has become a more pronounced reference. Hi-Def for example brings the promise of “being there,” and providing the experience of “looking through a window/portal onto the real event.” On these grounds, we also look at how closely a display can bring that “being there” or “looks so real” effect to the viewer.
I agree to a certain extent with the principle that a reflected light display should mimic what we see in “real life.” There is a sort of calm, natural ease to a well-calibrated projected image. Whereas many emissive diplays can have the “neon sign” effect.
But in my experience it isn’t so simple. No display truly recreates the look of real life. Each display has strengths, and fails in it’s own unique way to capture the look of real life.
Projection has the size and often the detail to provide the very valuable “immersion factor” which helps put the viewer into the scene. Also, projected images these days are capable of great brightness and a very suave, subtle, natural level of detail, especially with good HD signals. I’m really amazed at the strength of the projected image these days.
But in terms of realism (and I’ve written about this many times) I find the projected image still looks “projected.” What it misses is the intensity of what we often experience in real life, and the palpability factor. That is, the high-lights on a projected image never glint with the intensity of a real object being brilliantly high-lighted. The whiter areas of a projected image have a sort of see-through, light reflecting off the screen quality. An advantage of Plasmas, with their emissive rather than reflective technology, is more realistic intensity that they can bring to the dynamics of lighting, whether it be a hi-light on someone’s jacket, or a metal robot, or a concert scene.
(I had just returned from watching the HD scenes of Cold Play on a very good projector and was tremendously impressed. However, watching the same scenes on my plasma at night I saw the jump in realism in terms of the concert lighting. The stage lights that cut moving swaths through the misty air had a real-life brilliance and richness of color. It was a more realistic re-creation of what it’s like viewing performers under real stage lights).
The palpability factor is one of the things that sold me on plasma several years ago. Unlike a projected image, the plasma images, being made of “solid light” don’t look see-through or reflected. It looks solid. Which brings a density to the image I’ve never seen from even the most expensive projectors.
I remember watching the DVD of Star Wars (recent release of first episode; Luke Skywalker…whatever bloody number George has given it now) on a super-expensive Runco projector. I could see every detail in C3P0’s suit. It was amazing. However, when I got home and put the same scenes on my plasma what stood out was the sheer realism of how C3PO appeared on the display.
It really looked like dense, palpable, brilliant, shining gold metal. Like I could reach in and touch it. I just didn’t get that same feeling from the projected image.
To that end, over the years, I’ve done that “real life vs. a displayed image” comparison over and over. Just looking at real life, observing it’s qualities and then looking back to displays to see which captured the over-all feel best. I remember one store was playing a short HD loop that had a potted plant constantly appearing at the edge of the image. Amazingly enough, the store had almost the same plant, in a very similar pot, placed on the sides of several different displays. So I went around looking at the images on the Fujitsu 50” plasma, a couple of RPTVs and also a couple rooms projecting the image. Then I’d compare how the plant looked on screen to the real plant. The plasma simply looked closest to how the plant looked in real life. Whereas the projector/RPTVs all betrayed that see-through projected feel when directly compared to real life.
You can instantly get an idea of what I'm talking about if you are watching a really good projected image. If it starts to lull you into how realistic it looks just turn your attention from, say, an actor on screen to a real life person sitting or standing near you. The most striking difference will be the sheer solidity of real life, vs the ghost-like apparitions reflecting off the screen.
So those types of experiences (and countless unmentioned ones in my silly quest to understand imaging) have formed my opinion that, currently, plasma has the best potential for re-creating the look of real life, to my eye.
As I wrote in my “steaming rat” thread, I hate the “too much pop” or “neon sign” look of a display too. But it’s pretty easy to mitigate that look via picture settings and bring in a very natural balance, while retaining the plasma benefits of that image density and intensity.
However, I still find that the size of a projected image is a substantial plus in reproducing a “being there feeling.” And I think the better-projected images are capable of reproducing shadows and image detail with a smoothness and subtlety that is closer to the real thing. Plasmas can be tripped up still, when asked to produce wide contrast with even shadow detail.
A combination of both strengths – plasma/projector – would seem to be ideal. Since I’m not convinced projectors can overcome what seems an inherent “projected look,” and since plasmas will in all likelihood get better at subtleties and will increase toward “projected” sized screens, I’m betting plasma has the most future potential for recreating the feeling of “being there.” (Or perhaps the upcomming SED technology).
IMO of course.
At this point, both projectors and have pluses/minuses, which keeps me looking at both as an option.
Nicely stated, as usual, Rich. My sense is that, knowingly or unknowingly, you have made an excellent case for buying the 65 inch Panny plasma! In other words, you articulate what you view as the inherent strengths of plasma and mainly envy projectors for the big screen effect--which the upcoming big panny plasma 1080p goes a long way toward rectifying (if you sit close enough--which you can with that resolution). One projector you might want to take a look at before the final decision, though, is the new sim2 3 chip just announced (which some describe as a "plasma killer"). Not inexpensive, however...
nameless33
09-01-05, 03:57 PM
Never seen one except a $4000 display unit at Best Buy that looked awful. Maybe when they are marketed better...
I had one for 4 years in my old house - a 1366X768 Sony 10HT. I really miss it. There's really no substitute for a large screen in my opinion, if you're trying to recreate a movie experience. Movies were much more of an event when we lived there. I sold the house and was able to sell the projector and screen for way more than it was worth - $2600 (which was $4K less than I paid, but I was still shocked to get $2600) so selling it seemed like a no brainer, especially since it's replacement was much better and about the same price that I got. I ended up not getting anything as we couldn't figure out which room to put it in. We'll definitely buy one eventually, probably hide the screen in a soffet. We do all of our viewing now in bed, watching a 50" plasma that's mounted about 4' up opposite the bed. I think people are scared of projectors, but it's much less of a novelty item than it was 5 years ago. I can't believe how much better and cheaper they are now, yet people still go for plasmas. I have a feeling wives have something to do with it...
Ken Ross
09-01-05, 10:34 PM
Well Rich knows my feeling on this. I've always lusted after the display that gives me the greatest presence, the greatest 'you are there' look. I can see some of the virtues of FP, primarlily size, but the 'you are there' look is something that has always eluded me with FP. I just don't get that feeling of being there with FP that I do with plasma. So for me, FP is not coming as close to reality as plasma.....thus far no other technology is for that matter.
Yes, I would LOVE to have the enveloping size of a FP, but I won't give up that presence to get it. I just won't super size my display if I have to give up PQ.
Ou8thisSN
09-01-05, 11:19 PM
While I certainly agree with Rich about the characteristics of PDPs that differentiate it from FP, i also feel the need to mention the psychology of realism.
how do you get away from the mentality of watching tv, thats associated with every display tech besides FP, to embracing it as a true movie theater experience?
perhaps we could associate PDPs and other such technologies if they were the dominant form available at commercial theaters that we grew up watching movies in.
I mean, the words "watching a movie" brings up all sorts of psychological connotations that cant be replaced by, i think, another display device, this late in the game. All around the world, going to watch a movie, always brings up the image of a silver screen and a projected image. While a PDP has the glinting effect, i personally feel, it doesnt for whatever reason immerse me in the experience of watching a movie.
with a social and historical perspective, i have to respectfully disagree with you Rich that PDP will eventually become associated as the same as we feel about the words "watching a movie". I'm 22, so maybe for my kids, it might, but not for me, and certainly not for my parents.
Its not the accuracy or weaknesses that detract from projection (the last movie I saw in a commercial theater was War of the Worlds... to me personally it didnt seem a whole lot different than what we watch in our theater, at least not in terms of blacks. it was a Christie film projector).
There has to be the accountability for the psychological effects invoked when someone watches a movie on a TV screen, vs a movie screen. that is all i'm saying. At least in my generation, this still gives front projection the edge.
R Harkness
09-02-05, 10:08 AM
[QUOTE=Ou8thisSN]While I certainly agree with Rich about the characteristics of PDPs that differentiate it from FP, i also feel the need to mention the psychology of realism.
how do you get away from the mentality of watching tv, thats associated with every display tech besides FP, to embracing it as a true movie theater experience?
....... All around the world, going to watch a movie, always brings up the image of a silver screen and a projected image. While a PDP has the glinting effect, i personally feel, it doesnt for whatever reason immerse me in the experience of watching a movie.
.[/QUOTE]
That's understandable. There is obviously psychological variation working that make for people's varying impressions.
I replaced a 27" TV with a 42" plasma. At that time the plasma seemed so much bigger, not to mention moving from TV to Widescreen, it really felt like a movie-theater experience once I turned the lights down. Many people who visited said the same and often said it was "better than seeing it in the theater" because of the apparent extra vividness and realism of the image. Of course, time moves on, bigger displays become the norm and my 42" screen starts to look smaller and smaller. Now I'd like a bigger image. (If I'd owned a projector before receiving the plasma, the plasma would surely have looked like still "watching TV" compared, so it depends on a person's reference).
But as I said, friends who come over, who have yet to make the jump from a smaller tube set, really feel they are getting a theater-like experience when the lights go down and the surround sound comes on.
As I said, I'm struggling with what to upgrade to: a projector or a big plasma. One fellow here who owned a very good NEC DLP projector "downgraded" in size to a Panasonic 65" plasma. He said he thought he'd take a hit on the immersion factor, but reported he was surprised to find just the opposite. The plasma image had a way of drawing him "into the picture" that exceeded even his larger projected image.
I've done several direct comparisons between the Panasonic 65" plasma and some good DLP/LCD projectors. (Viewing the same DVD scenes, and then switching to watching those same scenes on the plasma). I watch the projected image and think "this is awesome, the size is like watching a movie and the image looks fantastic!" Then I watch the same scenes on the plasma and I think "holy crap that looks amazing, it looks reach-in-and-touch-it real." I wrote about this before, but one time I watched the T-Rex attack scene from Jurassic Park on a good DLP projector. I thought it was amazing the way it re-created the experience I had viewing that movie in the theater, which is a huge thing to do.
Then I watched the scene on the plasma and the experience had a different feel. Although somewhat smaller (but still a very big image at 65") once I turned down the lights the image had a window-into-real life effect. The T-Rex looked so realistic, so solid it was hair-raising. Unlike the projected image it had a "this thing is right there and could get me" vibe, and when it charged the screen I actually had these tingles of alarm go across my arms. It was fascinating.
So, that's why the plasma, for me, seems to make up for the size issue by providing a somewhat different and almost unique take on the viewing experience, especially at the 65" size.
But I'm keeping my projector quest open as well, because if I ever encounter a projector that produces a similar dynamic, palpable plasma-like effect it seems I'd have the best of both worlds.
(I've seen many good projectors, including viewing my DVDs several times on the Sony Qualia 004 projector. While the Sony had incredible detail and smoothness, it still lacked the palpability of the plasma).
PanamaMike
09-02-05, 10:38 AM
1: No
2: N/A
3: I'm interested in getting an LCD or Plasma for daytime viewing.
Rich, have you taken a look at CRT FPs? To me the CRT FP just provides the best picture possible. I have yet to see a digital that I prefer. In the right setup I think this provides the most realistic picture possible. The only other technology I would prefer is CRT direct view monitor.
Aside from that, I like FP due to the sheer immersion aspect. Once you get to the 90 inch plus size, anything smaller doesn't compare. It's like going to the movies, the picture may not be as good as your home rig, but the immersion quality is what you get that you can't at home. When it comes down to it, as long as the picture is of a good enough quality, you tend to forget about it when you're watching a movie. As long as you don't have pictures side by side, most will be happy with the picture in front of them.
If you suffer from videophile nervosa and all you think about is the picture quality and details, I'd say you have a bigger problem :) since you'll probably never be happy and I doubt you can enjoy the show. This has happened to me before and I realize it's just silly to be that concerned when you're trying to enjoy a show.
If video immersion doesn't float your boat, I suppose a plasma is the way to go since it doesn't have lighting restrictions and does provide a high pixel perfect resolution.
BTW, you have to see HD material on the projector. To me, it gives that window effect you talk about on plasma. Maybe the upconversion of DVD to the large screen takes away that "detailed" look.
Mike
R Harkness
09-02-05, 10:47 AM
[QUOTE=PanamaMike]
Rich, have you taken a look at CRT FPs? To me the CRT FP just provides the best picture possible. I have yet to see a digital that I prefer.
[/QUOTE]
j
No. I've always wanted to see a CRT FP but they are very hard to come by these days.
I don't know anyone who owns one. (Although, come to think of it I did see some CRT FPs in home theater demos of the past, but it's too long ago to recall the image quality).
Aside from that, I like FP due to the sheer immersion aspect. Once you get to the 90 inch plus size, anything smaller doesn't compare. It's like going to the movies,
I agree. The 90" seems to be a sort of tipping point where the image becomes immersive and really does seem theater-like.
If video immersion doesn't float your boat, I suppose a plasma is the way to go since it doesn't have lighting restrictions and does provide a high pixel perfect resolution.
Mike
Oh immersion DOES float my boat. I have always sought out the biggest movie screens and have sat within the first 1/3 of the theater or so for the immersion factor. That's why I want a bigger image. But I'm trying to decide which provides the over-all most engrossing viewing experience; big-arsed plasma or a projector.
Mondo1287
09-02-05, 11:24 AM
Rich thanks for your insight, as always your posts are more than informative. I still own neither a PDP or a fp, but I know exactly what you mean about the realism of the plasma. I almost think that it has something to do in part with the slight reflection you get on the plasma, that the reflection fools your brain into thinking you ARE looking through a window. I notice it all the time when walking through the monitor aisle at a store when you see the lcd monitors with the protective glass, for some reason it looks so real with that protective glass on there.
I am curious though if you had to choose between a 42" plasma, and a dlp projector with a huge screen. Which would you choose considering the projector would also be cheaper?
Patrick TX
09-02-05, 12:59 PM
I agree that the image from a Plasma is in it's own league, so deep. My bread & butter, day to day viewing is on a Pioneer 50" Plasma. If I want a cinematic experience, it's the FP in the dedicated room. I just get lost in the material. There's no bezel, mantel, stand, glare, furniture, or anything else to get in the way of being totally immersed in the experience.
R Harkness
09-02-05, 01:24 PM
I agree, one of the big pluses for being drawn into the viewing experience with a projector isn't just its size; it's also the viewing environment that happens with projection. Lights off, only the image to concentrate on.
For just that reason I've been watching my plasma in a "projector-like" environment. For watching movies, I hang a big blackout cloth behind my plasma, which obliterates any visual distractions. I also use masking to further black out "black bars" on wider format films (e.g. 2:35:1). The result, with the lights down, is only the image floating in the air surrounded by black (even on 2:35:1 movies). It's really mind blowing what this does for the image and the viewing experience all around. The image looks more pristine, more dimensional - like the image starts at the image plain and goes back, rather than simply being a flat image. And with no visible frame or bezel or anything else near the image, the image seems to sort of, subjectively, expand. There's an ease of concentrating on the image, corner-to-corner, that doesn't happen otherwise.
So it feels very cinematic.
Clearly, a projector set-up would do something similar (and I'd go for some type of masking system for projection if I got one). But I also keep imagining what it would look like to see the giant 65" Panasonic plasma under the same conditions. I would expect seeing a plasma image that large, floating in blackness, to be pretty astounding in it's dimensionality and realism.
(Hey, I just thought of a parallel. In high-end audio there has been a never-ending debate both of philosophy and tastes, in terms of the goal of high-end audio. Most agree a sort of verisimilitude; a recreation of the "original sound" is the aim. But audiophiles like that realism to come in different flavors. Some like the experience of immediacy, the goal being to make it sound like the performers have been brought "right there" into one's listening room. Others, instead, like to feel transported to the original acoustic event, and hence emphasize the immersive details of making sure the original hall acoustics are represented. So it's either a "they are here" or "you are brought there" schism. In a way, at this point, plasma is like the "they are here" effect. The plasma's vividness brings the images on screen "alive" with great immediacy. But the size limitation - field of view - limits the immersion factor and is less good at transporting the viewer to within the experience. Whereas the projector experience is closer to the "you are there" experience, in terms of surrounding you in it's world...albeit with less realistic immediacy than one sees in a plasma image
Eight months later...
This was an interesting thread that should be more interesting now. Check out the rave reviews of the Panasonic PT-AE900U and the Sanyo PLV-Z4 at www.projectorcentral.com. Is some ambient light still the reason for ruling out these projectors? Most of these projector owners are just ga-ga-thrilled with their toys.
[QUOTE=wojtek]>>1. Do you lust after a projector?
2. Why haven't you bought one?
3. Do you prefer any other display technologies over a projector?<<
1) yes
2) lack of dedicated room
3) no, bacuse the size of the front projected image more than makes up for any minor deficiences one could find in it vis-a-vis a direct view device such as plasma[/QUOTE]
My answers are the same as this guy.
s2mikey
04-20-06, 09:56 AM
1. Do you lust after a projector?
2. Why haven't you bought one?
3. Do you prefer any other display technologies over a projector?
1. Nope.
2. Because I find the PQ to be strange and non-realistic. The only reason that *most* people buy them is to impress others with the size of the picture. The bigger the picture, the WORSE the PQ. It's like buying a big truck or a big motorcycle for no reason other than the "size".... testosterone drives the decision.... :p :D
3. LCD rules. LOngest life, NO retention or other niggling "issue" like the other types, and that super bright, vivid picture that they provide.
jacksonian
04-20-06, 10:18 AM
[QUOTE=s2mikey]The only reason that *most* people buy them is to impress others with the size of the picture. The bigger the picture, the WORSE the PQ. It's like buying a big truck or a big motorcycle for no reason other than the "size".... testosterone drives the decision.... :p :D
3. LCD rules. LOngest life, NO retention or other niggling "issue" like the other types, and that super bright, vivid picture that they provide.[/QUOTE]
I couldn't disagree with you more on both points. Being a fanboy of one particular technology makes you look pretty ignorant. They each have their advantages and disadvantages. Obviously, LCD floats your boat for your reasons. No need to throw mud at everyone else to justify your choice.
andy sullivan
04-20-06, 12:09 PM
The only reason I have is the lack of the proper environment.
Nice to see this thread revived...I was quite curious about it when it got started last year (and always learn something from Rich Harknesses contributions). Having had a plasma for over 3 years and a projector for the past six months, I feel fairly confident in concluding that the best option if at all possible is to have both. When we first bought the projector I was so impressed that I thought the plasma would never be turned on again. But after a while I found myself going back to the plasma for normal TV watching with the lights on while using the projector exclusively for movies in a darkened environment. I'm actually surprised more people don't buy projectors given the relatively low cost for the size of the picture one gets. But for many people, including myself, it will never entirely supplant have a direct view set for regular/casual TV viewing...
R Harkness
04-20-06, 05:17 PM
[QUOTE=Pedro2]But for many people, including myself, it will never entirely supplant have a direct view set for regular/casual TV viewing...[/QUOTE]
No, I don't think even most people in the front projector forums advocate a FP for doing jacknife duty. Mostly it's for watching movies/HD content under controlled lighting.
My struggle is still, even in a controlled lighting set-up, what to get. I continue to vascillate. I see a projector "This is great, it's like being at the movies." I see a good plasma and I stand there drooling at the sheer beauty of the image, in a way I don't quite do with projectors. Then I sit in front of a 65" plasma when it's operating well and get the vibe "Damn it this looks great, and it does feel big enough."
That's why I eagerly await the Panny 1080p 65" to make up my mind. Although I know dislays "shrink" over time, I still don't know if I can give up the plasma effect for front projection, as awesome as front projection would be. (And viewing the various RPTVs today, including the SXRDs and JVC lcos versions, further convinces me it's either plasma or projection. I just don't get the same feeling viewing those RPTVs as I do a plasma. Whereas at least the FP can offer sheer scale of image, to grab my attention).
iqwertyi
04-20-06, 05:30 PM
[QUOTE=R Harkness]The reason this isn't in the projector forum is because it's aimed at people who HAVE NOT bought a Front Projector, for whatever reason.
1. Do you lust after a projector?
2. Why haven't you bought one?
3. Do you prefer any other display technologies over a projector?
Cheers,[/QUOTE]
I did have one. It was the InFocus 4805, then I got robbed.
So, I will eventually get another projector. I did like the larger size, I had about an 80" screen. One thing with the projector I had was, you needed to be able to control the room lighting. I had a room dedicated to the projector, but I had horizontal blinds and during the day, the little light that did pass thru affected the picture quite a bit.
At night though, it was great.
Once I clear up all my insurance claim, I'll probably go for another beginner projector. If I was to choose one, I would go with a plasma/LCD. I'm sure the higher end projectors can output enough light to make it look good during the day time, but I cannot afford one of those puppies.
Well, Rich, I suppose if you sit close enough to that Panny 65" (and you should be able to with 1080p) you can presumably have it both ways: the plasma look and the large theater-like image. So I do see the appeal! The big downside, as I see it, is both price and weight (some will weigh these factors differently than others, of course). For example, one could probably buy a good quality projector and a 50" Panny plasma for the same price or maybe even much less than that 65" 1080p plasma. Of course, if price is not an issue, maybe the idea would be a 65" plasma for the home theater room and smaller plasmas for the living room and bedroom! Finally, one thing I don't miss about the old CRT TV's is the weight--a factor that returns as a concern for me with the 65" plasma (probably weighs more than 150 lbs., no?).
peterofdevon
04-20-06, 07:22 PM
Rich,
I'm waiting for the 65 Panny 1080I too.
Peter
I don't watch TV; I watch DVDs, and only at night on weekends. I am drawn to projectors because I thought they would be something small and light that I could pick up and store away when not needed.
The only thing that kept me from getting one was that I had never seen a projection display. I finally had an opportunity to see a $3500 Sony on a $4000 Stewart screen at a fancy video store. The viewing room was pitch black, and I couldn't have been more disappointed in the image. It had no depth, and very weak color saturation.
I'd like to see more projectors, but if this expensive setup in a dedicated projection room is typical of the technology, then projectors...bleh!.
[QUOTE=jksgvb]I don't watch TV; I watch DVDs, and only at night on weekends. I am drawn to projectors because I thought they would be something small and light that I could pick up and store away when not needed.
The only thing that kept me from getting one was that I had never seen a projection display. I finally had an opportunity to see a $3500 Sony on a $4000 Stewart screen at a fancy video store. The viewing room was pitch black, and I couldn't have been more disappointed in the image. It had no depth, and very weak color saturation.
I'd like to see more projectors, but if this expensive setup in a dedicated projection room is typical of the technology, then projectors...bleh!.[/QUOTE]
that could easily be poor setup of the FP. (i've seen plenty at 'high end' dealers
that just weren't done right, like a sim3 being fed off a just a single composite
video cable...)
that said, i reserve my FP for movies and use my 42" plasma for watching TV.
agogley
04-20-06, 09:28 PM
Rich,
I just moved to Texas and now have a "media" room which I translate to a HT room. I have been looking at all options, but am really leaning towards the 61" Pio for the following reasons:
Projection systems, at least to me, still look like they are projected. They have that dull lifeless look, whereas the plasmas appear to be more vivid. Some other posts talked about the more natural look of projection systems. Perhaps I am too used to the plasma/LCD brightness to revert to a projection system.
Projection systems still require you to have dim or completely dark rooms for the best viewing environment. I don't necessarily want to watch something in the dark all of the time. I may want to have, say a Superbowl party or simply play on my 360 with some friends. Quite frankly, my friends are apt to spill enough with the lights on...I really don't need to have the room dark for these events.
Flexibility. You mentioned it earlier. The jack of all trades type of thing. Sure, you may have a dedicated HT theater. But will you tomorrow? Will you move? Will you want a new display technology? Personally, I will probably get transferred at least twice more in my lifetime. My next home may not have a dedicated home theater. Having a plasma gives me the ability to use my display pretty much anywhere in a home. Sure a 61" is a bit big and heavy, but it is still possible to put it in the living room no matter how small that may be in my next home. You can wall mount it or put it on a inexpensive entertainment stand. The projection system on the other hand is fairly limited in its use.
Cost. With a plasma you will have to purchase a mount or a stand. With a projector you'll have to purchase a mount or a stand (in most cases) and a screen. The screens can also get fairly hefty in price. IMO, a similar performing projection system will cost much more than the 65" plasma screen. Granted, cost is not a factor to all of us and there are a variety of factors that can reduce or increase total price, but to me, I find the plasma to be an overall solution that better fits into my budget.
Style. I know the FP will give you a much bigger screen. Can you really compare 65" to more than 100"? FP can also give you that movie theater experience. I don't see plasma really emulating that as well. You have to give FP its props, which is why I actually looked into getting one. Actually, my friends all want that 100" screen with the movie theater lighting, floors, etc. Not me though. I want my HT room to be more like the other rooms in the home and less like stepping into a separate movie theater. I want the room to be comfortable and the style to blend with the rest of the home. I want to use the room for TV, movies, and gaming. I am not saying that home theater rooms aren't any good. I have seen many that are darn impressive. I don't know how to explain it, other than to say it just isn't me.
R Harkness
04-20-06, 11:04 PM
[QUOTE=jksgvb]I finally had an opportunity to see a $3500 Sony on a $4000 Stewart screen at a fancy video store. The viewing room was pitch black, and I couldn't have been more disappointed in the image. It had no depth, and very weak color saturation.
I'd like to see more projectors, but if this expensive setup in a dedicated projection room is typical of the technology, then projectors...bleh!.[/QUOTE]
You really have to get out to try some other projector set-ups. I've seen a few that looked dim and tepid as you describe, but many others that were awesome. In fact, last year a salesman dragged me into a projection room to view a cheap $1,500 BenQ DLP on a $500 screen. The image, especially for that money, just dropped my jaw. Deep blacks, punchy image, very rich colors, very good clarity. I just couldn't believe the type of viewing experience you could get for that money.
The problem for me is that I'm extremely sensitive to the DLP "rainbow" effect, which makes them too brutal to watch for too long, for me. And the 3 chip models are ultra expensive at the moment. LCD projectors don't do it for me. That leaves the Sony Ruby SXRD projector as the front runner, and it's actually close to the same price as I'd expect for the new Panasonic 65."
R Harkness
04-20-06, 11:11 PM
Nice post agogley.
Sometimes I sit in my media-room-to-be and image a big projected image on the wall and
think "wow." At the same time, I know that, using all the set-up tricks I've learned with my 42" plasma, for increasing the apparent image quality, I'm sure the Panasonic 65" could hit a level hard to match in terms of sheer "holy crapness" PQ.
[QUOTE=agogley] Not me though. I my HT room to be more like the other rooms in the home and less like stepping into a separate movie theater. I want the room to be comfortable and the style to blend with the rest of the home. I want to use the room for TV, movies, and gaming. I am not saying that home theater rooms aren't all of that. I have seen many that are darn impressive. I don't know how to explain it, other than to say it just isn't me.[/QUOTE]
I feel the same way. I'm left cold by the whole "it looks like a shoe-box mini-plex movie theater in my house" thing. It just feels weird. For me the whole point of HT would be to mix "Home" and "Theater." Like you are at the theater watching a movie and you think "Man this image is great, imagine if I could watch this lying on my couch at home with a bag of popcorn on my tummy" kind of thing.
Whereas those HTs with the rows of theater seats in rows seem a bit stiff and formal - not what I'm going for. Why do I want to re-create theater seats?
So I really like home theater set-ups with comfy couches, maybe pillows on the floor for kids...real lounging around, homey comfort stuff.
[QUOTE=R Harkness]Nice post agogley.
So I really like home theater set-ups with comfy couches, maybe pillows on the floor for kids...real lounging around, homey comfort stuff.[/QUOTE]
maybe something like this??
http://gallery.avsforum.com/showphoto.php/photo/308/cat/500/perpage/12/sort/2/ppuser/1471
as i recall, he's using a high power screen which is pretty viewable in daytime conditions.
Rich, I agree--couches and comfy home-like seating is MUCH better than a stiff/formal theater-like setup. And I am similarily concerned about DLP rainbow effect. Sorry to hear the LCD projectors don't work for you--but by the time that Panny 1080p plasma comes out I wouldn't be surprised if 3 chip projectors have dropped substantially in price and/or LCD has improved enough to catch your attention...
clintyarborough
04-21-06, 12:23 PM
I'll post my observations, since I have both (only use the plasma now though). I have an Infocus X1 with a 163" screen (really big room). So, my projector is a few years old and it started having the color wheel noise issue. I decided to get a 50" plasma after having the projector for about 2 1/2 years. I loved the size of the projector, but the quality did suffer some at that size, and I definitely had light issues with a screen that big. The plasma on the other hand seems small after having the screen, but there are no light issues at all, I can watch it anytime of the day, with the windows open and still see everything perfect. For me, the projector has much better immersion.
I'm selling my house now, and I plan to fix the projector and have both in my new house, probably a 120" or so screen for movies, and the plasma for games, tv, etc...
I have a friend that got a 4805 and he has an 80 inch or so screen. At that size he can watch it most of the time without any light issues even with the windows open. Initially when he got it, I still had the X1 up, and while his was better quality, you still couldn't beat the immersion of the huge screen. Now that I have the plasma, I prefer it over his, but I still long for the size I had with my X1.
So, if you want a huge screen, go Projector, if you have light issues and 50 or 60" is big enough, then go plasma. In a perfect world, get both. :)
dsmith901
04-21-06, 01:50 PM
I could consider a FP at some point if and when: a) they improve brigtness/contrast to approach plasma; b) they don't require a total blackout room for viewing; c) the bulbs either last 60,000 hours or they include a lifetime supply of bulbs in the price; d) they make them without fans, and e) they make them to not explode during a sudden power failure (or whatever catastrophe befalls them in those events. Until then, I will probably stick with plasma or SEDs (if ever). Oh, yes, and the price of a good screen alone doesn't cost as much as a 50" plasma TV.
dssmith901, sounds like you will never get a FP! You're certainly not alone. But a few clarifications: one does not need a totally dark environment for good viewing; and you can get a good screen for hundreds of dollars--not thousands (certainly not the equivalent to the cost of a 50" plasma). Unless one goes high end, a decent projector and screen is more cost-effective (even with replacing bulbs) than a large plasma, though again, the ideal solution for many is to have some kind of combination of the two for different viewing purposes...
I think a projector would be awesome but between bulb replacement cost and ambient light issues I don't think it will work for me. I suggested a projector to my wife and she promptly shot it down. She said, "It's a family room, not a drive-in!". Oh well...
renlopez
04-21-06, 03:54 PM
Rich, How about the 103" Plasma?
R Harkness
04-21-06, 04:03 PM
Yeah, one thing about projectors: bulb wear. People come on here worried about plasma's dimming over time and it's mostly an unfounded fear, based upon plasma life-spans and how long it would take for any perceptible dimming to occur.
Whereas it's a very real and sometimes pressing problem with front projectors. There are quite a number of threads from owners of various projectors, complaining about visible dimming of the image in only hundreds of hours (or less!).
on bulb life, the real problem/concern is premature bulb failure--if a bulb lasts as long as it should (i.e. 2,000 or even 3,000 hours or so) that is pretty reasonable, but there are many reports of bulbs dying earlier so that is a risk. A bulb can cost $200-$300. On the bulb dimming over time, again a potential concern, but many people (including myself) use their projector in low/economy mode, and so if there is substantial dimming can just switch to normal bright mode. Shouldn't be a big deal. This hasn't happened to me so far so have not had to deal with it yet. So far so good!
one more thing: various posters report they tried the idea of a projector on their wife and got voted down. Too bad. In my case, my wife was VERY skeptical and even hostile to the idea, but once I had things set up she now can't imagine living without it...I convinced her to give it a try by indicating I'd be willing to return it if she didn't like it. Another appealing aspect of the setup is that with the projector itself so small and ability to roll up the screen, it takes up hardly any space at all...Indeed, the home theater room doubles as a home office and guest room.
agogley
04-22-06, 12:30 AM
[QUOTE=lcubed]maybe something like this??
http://gallery.avsforum.com/showphoto.php/photo/308/cat/500/perpage/12/sort/2/ppuser/1471
as i recall, he's using a high power screen which is pretty viewable in daytime conditions.[/QUOTE]
I don't find this picture to be good at all. I think my 43" PDP would blow that out of the water. Add a little more light to that room, and I think the PDP would be more impressive. Not to mention, the FP sits on the coffee table. Where the heck am I going to put my feet, the potato chips, and the sodas?
agogley
04-22-06, 12:34 AM
[QUOTE=R Harkness]Nice post agogley.
Sometimes I sit in my media-room-to-be and image a big projected image on the wall and
think "wow." At the same time, I know that, using all the set-up tricks I've learned with my 42" plasma, for increasing the apparent image quality, I'm sure the Panasonic 65" could hit a level hard to match in terms of sheer "holy crapness" PQ.
I feel the same way. I'm left cold by the whole "it looks like a shoe-box mini-plex movie theater in my house" thing. It just feels weird. For me the whole point of HT would be to mix "Home" and "Theater." Like you are at the theater watching a movie and you think "Man this image is great, imagine if I could watch this lying on my couch at home with a bag of popcorn on my tummy" kind of thing.
Whereas those HTs with the rows of theater seats in rows seem a bit stiff and formal - not what I'm going for. Why do I want to re-create theater seats?
So I really like home theater set-ups with comfy couches, maybe pillows on the floor for kids...real lounging around, homey comfort stuff.[/QUOTE]
There seems to be something about a wall mounted flat screen with properly concealed wires that is just impressive to see. I don't know why that it is, but I never ceased to be awed by the sight. And I certainly think that a flat screen is more fitting for a family room type of environment. Both are personal preference of course.
[QUOTE=agogley]I don't find this picture to be good at all. I think my 43" PDP would blow that out of the water. Add a little more light to that room, and I think the PDP would be more impressive. Not to mention, the FP sits on the coffee table. Where the heck am I going to put my feet, the potato chips, and the sodas?[/QUOTE]
i think that you'd have to see that projector in action to really make such a blanket
statement like that. as long as the direct sunlight isn't actually on the
screen, the high powers and silverstar screen do a great job rejecting ambient light.
in this particular setup, the FP is table mounted due to a requirement of that particular screen.
the high power is retroreflective and for max gain of 2.8,
requires the projector to be near the viewer. no such requirement on the
other screens.
i do happen to know that setup in that picture pricewise is comparable to a decent
50" plasma. (i've got that projector and built my dad's HT around a very similar screen)
my 42" plasma totally washes out due to reflections and direct sunlight.
i'm not too swayed by the projector bulb changeout issue.
seriously, if my bulb has a useful life of 2000 hours, that's 8 hours per day,
five days a week for a year. that's a lot of viewing.
On the issue of price comparisons to plasma, note that you can now get a Panny 900 HD projector and a graywolf 92" screen for LESS than a Panny 37" HD plasma.
The concern over bulb life is another reason to restrict projector use to movies, and have a direct view set for regular TV viewing.
agogley
04-24-06, 07:37 PM
[QUOTE=lcubed]i think that you'd have to see that projector in action to really make such a blanket
statement like that. as long as the direct sunlight isn't actually on the
screen, the high powers and silverstar screen do a great job rejecting ambient light.[/QUOTE]
I was looking at the picture that you provided, which I considered less than impressive. Perhaps a real life demo would provide a better matchup. I have yet to see one at a home theater store that really made me seriously think about one. Other than the large screen size potential, I am not convinced of the value. I'll see if I can't find some upper end AV stores that have some decent projectors.
[QUOTE=agogley]I was looking at the picture that you provided, which I considered less than impressive. [/QUOTE]
gosh, i don't know what to tell you. i've seen equally awful pictures of plasma taken
on equally low contrast, low resolution digital cameras, downsampled to avs requirements.
actually, i've got some really bad photos of my 42" plasma right now.
it doesn't look anything like the picture i see.
the point of the picture was that the FP was setup in a living room,
not a glorified formal HT.
if you're in the dc area, you could drop tpfar a line and actually see it for yourself.
R Harkness
04-25-06, 11:54 PM
Aggh. The torturous wait for the Panasonic 65" 1080p model continues.
While I twiddle my thumbs, I keep measuring my room and checking out various displays, including...yet again...the Sony Ruby SXRD projector.
I was dying to see how some of my newer DVDs looked on that thing, as it's pretty much the one projector I've been considering as an alternative to the big Panasonic plasma.
King Kong - a movie that demands a big screen, looked awesome. The size and scope of the image was superb. And I quickly became used to viewing the 104" (diag) screen from about 11 or 12 feet. What detail. What smoothness in terms of gray scale and shadow detail! (I've demoed the projector a number of times, so I already know this about it).
And for a projector - very nice black levels.
It was certainly much more reminiscent of viewing the film at the theater than I get from my 42" plasma, that's for sure.
But...is that what I want??? I'm still struggling with that. After a while I start to crave the "plasma effect" that I'm not getting on the projected image. And, no doubt due to the limitations of the NTSC DVD format, the image doesn't always look beautiful.
Close ups look smooth, but medium/far shots reveal a digital blockiness to small or far away details, like long shots of people walking through jungles. No doubt the limits of the DVD resolution, coupled perhaps with visible compression. The new HD DVDs should alleviate that to a degree. But I'm used to sort of drinking in every shot on DVDs like Kong, when I find myself alternating between "looks great" and "kinda yucky" when viewed on the Ruby. (I don't get that with the Panasonic 65" current plasma - the image tends to maintain smoothness throughout).
And while the Ruby does a superb job in some shots in terms of richness and dimensionality, others look more washed out and flat compared to what I'm used to (e.g. the appearance of the dinosaurs in Kong before the stampede...I could really see the white crush caused by the Ruby's dynamic iris, exacerbated by the demands of those scenes). As well, while sometimes the image had more punch and presence than I've ever seen in a theater, in over-all terms of detail, natural subtlety and smoothness, it didn't match the film projected in the theater. (We have some good theaters around). So, I'd get the feeling on some shots "This looks amazing," but on a significant number of shots I'd have the vibe of sitting in one of those shoe-box cineplex
cinemas of the 80s, watching a sub-par film print. (Again, HD DVD should help there).
Still, there were some shots looking up at Kong that were just breathtaking.
I also watched a few other titles, including The Incredibles. The Incredibles looked...well...a lot like it looked in the movie theater - a big projected image that really made their world life-sized and that my eye could wander around, throughout the frame. I love that immersive vibe.
But, again, the difference from what I'm used to is hard to forget. On the plasma The Incredibles come alive - the characters look super vivid, solid, almost like staring at a sort of virtual reality parallel universe through a window. But projected on the Ruby it didn't have that quality. Rather it was a more washed out look (comparatively) and the Incredibles had less of a brought-to-dimensional-life look of CG movies on the plasma, and more of a water-color or painterly feel to the image. It was a totally different effect. For all the size, I sort of missed the bizarre realism of the plasma image.
When I got home I played all the same parts on the plasma. Obviously there was a huge hit in image size. But all those qualities I thought I wasn't getting from the Ruby showed up in spades on the plasma. Especially using my black masking/black background on the plasma, I couldn't believe how The Incredibles came alive, compared to the projected image. It was just a dazzling level of punch, richness and solidity to the image compared to the projected version.
As well, I find the plasma has a fascinating effect in terms of black levels. The Ruby projector is, I believe, capable of better absolute black levels than even the Panasonic plasma (not ANSI levels, though). And yet, with most source material, the Panasonic plasma black levels actually appear deeper and more solid. For instance, there is a scene I took note of in King Kong, with Jack Black in the ship's store-room, dictating ideas to Adrian Brody. Brody is in an animal cage, with it's deep, dark (disappearing into black) bars being in the forefront of some shots, partially obscuring the actors.
On the projected image those deep black bars looked essentially like dark lines of shadow on the screen. Black never looks like a solid object - so much as like shadows on a projection screen. This, for me, is one of those things that limit the "realism" effect in projection.
But on the plasma those same black bars looked like...solid black cage bars hovering in front of the image. Like I could reach in and grab them.
Also, another thing about the projection image that nagged at me somewhat: the sort of ephemeral nature of the image. The image was being projected in a special dedicated projector room - completely black walls, curtains etc, for best effect. But even the tiniest bits of light, if I turned up the dimmer just a tad to view the remote,
made the image start to wash away on the screen, like blowing away mist. Or when someone knocked the curtains covering the entrance way, the way the merest light-spill
ruined the illusion. The image just sort of felt a lot more "fragile" than I'm used to.
There is something to the robustness of a bright, emitted image on something like a plasma that is in of itself, an attractive quality.
Which got me right back to my room, measuring for the Panny 65" plasma again. I'm sure I'll feel the pull of projection again. But I'm again in the mode that, sitting fairly close to the plasma should get me as close to both worlds as I'm able to get: a bigger more cinematic effect, with all the special qualities of plasma.
Just more ramblings. Carry on... :) .
agogley
04-26-06, 09:56 AM
I have had similar musings...but I keep coming back to the same thought process. I know that I would never compare a 65" PDP to a 65" FP simply because I know (at least IMHO) that there is no comparison. So I think to myself, 65" is a bit big for a plasma (not mention heavy) and with a FP I could get a really big screen. "100 inches or so would be cool," I think to myself. Then I get into the part I don't like. How much money do I have to spend to get the FP to show I picture that I can tolerate? And I say tolerate, because no matter what system I preview I feel that the image is less than the picture I prefer. Perhaps there is a FP out there that has an incredible picture, but I have yet to see one. And based on the other posts here, neither has anybody else.
I forgot to mention one major point. I find it interesting that a FP you get a better picture in a darker room. I can't watch a PDP in a dark room because it hurts my eyes. I have to employ a backlight at minimum.
I finally come to the bottom line: Would I prefer a 61-65" PDP with an absolutely amazing picture or a 100" or so picture that I can simply tolerate?
I'm starting to think the best solution is the 65" PDP and moving the couches closer to the screen.
DD's Lounge
04-26-06, 10:52 AM
[QUOTE=R Harkness]The reason this isn't in the projector forum is because it's aimed at people who HAVE NOT bought a Front Projector, for whatever reason.
The thread title comes from the fact I was recently, yet again, impressed by a front projector, and from my own project over the past year of deciding on my next display. I got a plasma several years ago because of two factors: I was blown away by the image quality and "had to have one" and also the fact the plasma was best suited to solving the problems of my small viewing room. It was a great choice (as if I haven't written my head off about the thing over the years, here).
Then, after becoming too frustrated by the limitations of that room - couldn't go for much bigger screen sizes, limited options for seating (only one or two people could get a direct view seat) I gave up on that room and decided to use another one. (Currently my high-end audio listening room....which is becoming a victim of encroaching Home Theater).
Suddenly I had room for a screen size of up to perhaps 100." PROJECTOR TIME! After all, front projectors are supposed to be the pinnacle home theater experience.
So I upped my interest in projectors, checked many out (from $1,500 models up to, for kicks, $40,000 models, including the Sony Qualia). Just last week I was watching some Hi-Def on a Sim2 DLP projector. It wasn't even a full hi-def res projector but, damn, that was a fine image. It was bright, colorful, punchy, good black level, amazingly detailed and very sharp, despite the 110" size of the image. Add that sheer size in and it really comes close to a you-are-there vibe.
And yet...even as great as it was, even as great as any of the projectors I've seen have performed, I don't quite get the level of thrill I do out of seeing the same material on a big-arsed plasma (like the Panasonic 65" of course). After a while I start to ask myself "this is great, but...I wonder what it will look like on the plasma."
When I got home I watched the same HD demo on my 42" ED plasma. The hit in image size was obviously significant, but there was that X-factor of the added vividness, richness and density of the image that was similarly thrilling in it's own way.
That is one of the reasons why I'm pretty sure the Panasonic 65" 1080p is in my future, despite that I have room for a projector. With the lights down, that 65" is going to look plenty big, but will also come with the "x-factors" I see in the plasma image. I'm going to keep looking at projectors while waiting for the Panny 65" to appear, though.
That's a round-a-bout way of getting to my question:
For those who haven't got a projector I'm curious about your rational (which I know will be much more varied than my own...cost/room limitations etc).
1. Do you lust after a projector?
2. Why haven't you bought one?
3. Do you prefer any other display technologies over a projector?
Cheers,[/QUOTE]
Not really but if I win the Lottery I will have the Best projection theater of all time.
Cant afford one.
DLP is quite nice except I bought to big of one for my room so movies arnt as good but HiDef is awesome , so in the future I will get a 52in instead of 62in I should have listened to my wife.
R Harkness
04-26-06, 11:05 AM
[QUOTE=DD's Lounge]
DLP is quite nice except I bought to big of one for my room so movies arnt as good but HiDef is awesome , so in the future I will get a 52in instead of 62in I should have listened to my wife.[/QUOTE]
Wow. Movies aren't as good on the bigger screen and you want to go smaller? That's contrary to most people's experience (which is why so many buy projectors if they have the means).
DD's Lounge
04-26-06, 11:13 AM
[QUOTE=R Harkness]Wow. Movies aren't as good on the bigger screen and you want to go smaller? That's contrary to most people's experience (which is why so many buy projectors if they have the means).[/QUOTE]
I told the salesmen that my room wasnt that big but he said it would work untill he got there and said that it was smaller than he thought . The movies are still good but on some of the dark parts you can see the pixels but if you stand farther back you dont see them but then you dont get the full surround sound because you are out of the main center sound so I can deal with it for now. I'm still very happy with the Mits 62 but the 52 would have been perfect. Hi Def is just perfect though.
R Harkness
04-26-06, 01:26 PM
[QUOTE=DD's Lounge]I told the salesmen that my room wasnt that big but he said it would work untill he got there and said that it was smaller than he thought . The movies are still good but on some of the dark parts you can see the pixels but if you stand farther back you dont see them but then you dont get the full surround sound because you are out of the main center sound so I can deal with it for now. I'm still very happy with the Mits 62 but the 52 would have been perfect. Hi Def is just perfect though.[/QUOTE]
Ah. I can see your point then.
Rich, have you seen Hidef on a projector? That would really show you the full potential of a projector. It seems that most of your comments are DVD related--no surprise that when blown up to 104", a DVD image will not look as good as a 65" plasma. But hidef DVDs are on the horizon, and more cable/satellite channels in HD are arriving all the time...even if still not nearly enough or fast enough. One last thought: the specific type of screen makes a big difference in terms of black levels and handling ambient light. A relatively inexpensive graywolf screen, for example, enhances blacks and does not require complete darkness. By the way, just saw King Kong on the big screen a few days ago, too.
R Harkness
04-26-06, 02:10 PM
Pedro2,
Yes, I've seen Hi-Def on projectors quite often, including uncompressed 1080i HDcam footage fed to the Sony Ruby - which is as close to the pinnacle of consumer projection experiences you can get right now.
It can be pretty amazing. But much of the differences in "solidity and palpability" to the image between the projected image and the plasma image still applies. I still find the best HD on the right plasma has a greater reality factor (size notwithstanding).
And yes I've seen the Ruby projector on different screens - one regular gain (which is generally recommended) and also on a lower gain Stewart screen. Very impressive in both instances.
As I mentioned, the advent of HD DVDs may well resolve some of my issues with the slightly cruder image when blown up on the big screens. I have seen HD movie feeds on the Sony projector and they looked very nice. However, it still looks different than plasma - it looks like projected film. However, since the advent of bigger-screen TVs like plasma, which offer such rich punchy images, sometimes even a projected image can leave me wanting "more."
(And I can't afford to have both...I see terrible rainbows on single chip DLPs, 3 chip DLPs are too expensive, and LCD projectors don't do it for me. At the moment, it's either a Sony Ruby projector or big plasma).
Scarpad
04-26-06, 04:02 PM
I had one for a couple of Years but it's been getting less usage in the last 6 months as we had gotten a new puppy that we did not want to leave alone and did'nt trust yet in the theater to be with us. I expect to start using it again more often this summer where the basement is cooler. Still I use mine only for movies for TV I just bought a 32" LCD and I have to admit watching movies on it in the last few months, from an upconverting player the image is stunning. Makes it hard to go back to my 800x600 Optoma 30
Rich, based on everything you've said on this thread it seems pretty clear to me that you'd probably regret getting a projector and that the 65" Panny plasma is the clear, logical choice for you (especially with 1080p). So it seems that it is just a matter of patience--waiting for the panel to come out, perhaps drop in price a bit, too!
vBulletin v3.0.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.