Considering that films shot on 1920x1080 cameras such as the Panavision GENESIS, don't "fall apart" on screens as large as 65 feet, (the largest I've seen projected) I have serious doubts that any screen size you have at home is going to present that resolution with any difficulties.Joseph Bolus said:I view Blu-ray discs 8' back from a 96" screen via my front projection system. If the BD is properly mastered the rendered image seems extremely detailed with good vibrancy. I'm sure that Blu-ray starts to "fall apart" a little past 120", but very few average consumers are going to want to deal with images above that size -- even via a portable projection system.
I have a 120" screen and well-produced BRDs do not fall apart at that size image. They look even better and they are even more enjoyable!Douglas Monce said:Considering that films shot on 1920x1080 cameras such as the Panavision GENESIS, don't "fall apart" on screens as large as 65 feet, (the largest I've seen projected) I have serious doubts that any screen size you have at home is going to present that resolution with any difficulties.
Doug
Yeah, 3D will flop. Just like the 1950s where it lasted two years 1952-54 and 1980s where again it lasted only two years 1982-84. And of course recently where in 2008 we only had 5 3d films, 22 in 2009, 37 in 2010, 55 in 2011, and probably more this year. Yeah, its a flop.Jim Mcc said:I think it will be a flop, just like 3D will AGAIN.
Sad but true...Kevin Collins said:Unfortunately for those that frequent this forum, we are a minority. We want incredible picture quality, sound quality and features. The rest of the mainstream public isn't us...
How far do you sit from the screen?Kevin Collins said:I have watched many HD DVD and Blu-ray discs on 10' wide screens (not diagonal). If you have a good PJ and the disc is authored / compressed properly, the image never falls apart. I have an 9' wide screen 16:9 screen (124" diagonal) in my HT, Adam has a 10' wide screen (137" diagonal) in his HT. We both have basically the same PJ, the Samsung 800/900 and the lens on that PJ doesn't disappoint.
For a PJ, there are not any consumer projectors that have enough light output for a screen >10'. You have to get into PJ class >$20K to get that kind of light output.
When you get into that territory, there are a number of custom installers that I know that do 20' wide screens and use Blu-Ray as the primary driving source and the image is spectacular. Now, when they move to cable/satellite, that is a different story as the compression becomes obvious.
At the end of the day, the resolution really isn't what is important, it is how the compression was done on the original image. A similar analogy is cameras. These crap cameras on phones with 8-16 megapixels going through a plastic lens produce a crap picture.
This gets down to the root of the original post. Upscaling to 4K isn't going to make any difference if the original was shot in low resolution or if the compression is crap. Getting the industry to rally behind capturing video on 4K or rescanning negatives at 4K is going to be next to impossible. The industry already found out that people didn't move to Blu-ray because of increased picture quality like they did to DVD. Mainly because DVD added more convenience factors besides image quality than VHS (i.e durable media that didn't decline with use and the ability to not have to rewind or wait to chapter skip). This is why more people are moving to streaming digital than Blu-ray disc... Convenience.. The same reason that people embraced digital music over a higher quality sound on CD... convenience...
Unfortunately for those that frequent this forum, we are a minority. We want incredible picture quality, sound quality and features. The rest of the mainstream public isn't us...
With my Sanyo 720p projector I sit about 13 1/2 feet from the wall and the Sanyo projects an image that is about 8 1/2 feet wide and 58 inches high. That's 1.6 the screen width which is fine. If I buy the Panasonic PT-AE7000 for 2.35:1 it would be 11 ft 4 inches wide and 58 inches high, that would be about 1.2 screen width. If that's acceptable I should get it as I'm also interest in 3D.Kevin Collins said:I sit a max of 1.5X the width of any screen, but in my HT is sit 10' away from my screen ~1.1X the width. THX recommends a further distance than that, but I prefer seeing more detail. I never can see pixel structure at that distance. I just have one row of seating positions as my HT isn't completed yet in terms of acoustics and real HT seats. At Adam's house I also go for the "pole position" which is ~ 11' from his screen.
.