-

Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Have $1500 - Whats my best bet?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
12 replies to this topic

#1 of 13 Matthew Will

Matthew Will

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 169 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2002

Posted June 25 2003 - 10:27 AM

Hello all,
I have finally saved enough money to upgrade my projector. I'm looking to spend about $1500 for a quality projector. Right now all I have been looking at are the Dell 3200 mp's on ebay. There seems to be a constant supply of them at $1549.
I would prefer a DLP because this is going to be used for video gaming and movies primarily so I want to avoid burn in and dead pixels. Also DLP is better for reducing the screen door affect. The 3200 has the newer 12 degree mirror techonolgy to help reduce rainbows and increase contrast dramatically. Before I go ahead and shell out money on my most expensive purchase ever I would like to hear some suggestions for other projectors I should look into. I don't mind looking for refurbished projectors or through ebay auctions. I'd prefer to buy something new but for a slightly used price such as the $1549 deal on the Dell 3200mp. Let me know asap. Thanks. Matt

#2 of 13 Matthew Will

Matthew Will

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 169 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2002

Posted June 25 2003 - 06:09 PM

No ideas or opinions? I need suggestions quick guys. Matt

#3 of 13 Jed M

Jed M

    Screenwriter

  • 2,030 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 02 2001

Posted June 25 2003 - 07:45 PM

Have you looked at the Infocus X1 for 1000? I have not seen the Dell so I can't comment.
Long you live and high you fly
And smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
And all you touch and all you see
Is all your life will ever be.
-R. Waters

#4 of 13 Matthew Will

Matthew Will

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 169 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2002

Posted June 26 2003 - 01:58 AM

Hello,
Yes I have. One concern I have about it is that it is only 800X600 resolution while the 3200 is 1024X768. Thats one reason I also have not looked much at the 2100 mp from dell. Matt

#5 of 13 Andrew Pratt

Andrew Pratt

    Producer

  • 3,813 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 08 1998

Posted June 26 2003 - 02:01 AM

That seems like a good deal on the 3200.

#6 of 13 Rick Guynn

Rick Guynn

    Second Unit

  • 473 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 1999

Posted June 26 2003 - 05:55 AM

Given your price point, there's not a ton to choose from. And if you are looking for XGA and DLP, then it gets even narrower. I'm not sure I would have eliminated LCDs from the mix, especially given the reasons you have stated. But, it sounds like you have found a good deal on the Dell.

RG

#7 of 13 KenBo

KenBo

    Extra

  • 16 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 17 2003

Posted June 26 2003 - 03:01 PM

I wasn't aware that LCD's could suffer from burn in. Am I wrong?

Ken

#8 of 13 Rick Guynn

Rick Guynn

    Second Unit

  • 473 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 1999

Posted June 27 2003 - 12:56 AM

No, LCDs do not suffer from burn-in.

RG

#9 of 13 Bob Maged

Bob Maged

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 173 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 09 1999

Posted June 27 2003 - 03:43 AM

Projectorpeople.com is still selling the Panasonic PT-L200U with a Da-Lite Model B 16:9 77" diagonal matte white screen for just $1099. Search this forum for Ron-P's thread about this deal. I took delivery of mine 2.5 weeks ago and love it. You'll have $400 left over from your $1500 budget for other goodies.

#10 of 13 Matthew Will

Matthew Will

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 169 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2002

Posted June 27 2003 - 06:17 PM

Hello,
Sorry about the burn-in comment. I wasn't thinking. I am afraid of dead pixels though. If you ask me it sounds like DLP's only wear and tear breakdown would be a burnt out bulb.

So no one else has any suggestions for DLP projectors? Is the 1024X768 that more detailed that it costs me 600 bucks? Matt

#11 of 13 Rick Guynn

Rick Guynn

    Second Unit

  • 473 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 1999

Posted June 28 2003 - 02:58 AM

Matt, it depends on how you look at it. For widescreen material, the usable resolution will be:

1024*(9/16)= 576, so 1024 x 576.

This is opposed to the 960 x 540 you would get on the Z1 or L300U, or the 850 x 480 on the L200U.

Personally, if you are going to be doing more 4 x 3 (computer, video games) than movies, I would probably go with the XGA. If you plan on more movies and/or playing video games in 16 x 9, save the money and look at the Z1.

RG

#12 of 13 Matthew Will

Matthew Will

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 169 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2002

Posted June 28 2003 - 05:02 AM

This is what I do not understand. Ok. XGA projectors have more possible lines of resolution. Does this mean and XGA projector has the same number of pixels per inch as a 800X600 resolution projector? If theyre both only going to only use 576 lines for widescreen? Or is it the first number, 1024, that really defines how sharp an image that can be produced by a projector? Matt

#13 of 13 Rick Guynn

Rick Guynn

    Second Unit

  • 473 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 1999

Posted June 28 2003 - 06:00 AM

You have to look at it in turn of total pixels in the image. XGA resolution is 1024 x 768: 1024 pixels in the horizontal direction and 768 in the vertical. This is a 4x3 aspect ratio. Total pixels for 4x3 is 1024*768= 786432 total pixels for 4x3.

"Widescreen" is 16x9. It will use all of the horizontal pixels, but not all of the vertical. 16x9 will use 576 vertical pixels on an XGA panel. And, depending on the movie, you might use even less. A 2.35:1 movie would only use 435 vertical pixels, but still use 1024 horizontal pixels.

You apply the same math to any projector. The X1 is 800x600 native. In 16:9 mode, the resolution would be 800*(9/16)= 450, so 800x450.

A PJ always uses all of its horizontal pixels, it's the vertical pixels that get 'adjusted' to the aspect ratio of the picture.

So, I guess you could reasonably just go by the horizontal pixels for your resolution factor, in this case 1024. But you need to understand the whole picture to see just how much better it is.

RG