-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Why get TVs?


This topic has been archived.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

#1 of 51 Sacha_C

Sacha_C

    Second Unit

  • 294 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 13 2003

Posted November 28 2003 - 05:19 AM

I'm having a hard time understanding why people here still mostly buy TVs when they can get a much larger and better picture for cheaper with a projector.

I understand if your budjet is below $1000 then you dont have much choice, but other than that, unless you have a room with absolutly no light control, what are the advantages of a TV, if any?

Thanks

#2 of 51 STLMIKE

STLMIKE

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 209 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 02 1998

Posted November 28 2003 - 06:04 AM

W/a projector you have: expensive bulbs, ambient light issues, having to sit in a darkened room while watching regular TV (not just movies), having to power up a receiver to get audio for any kind of TV programming (not just movies).

IMO, I would only ever want a projector in a dedicated HT setting (i.e. not in my living room).

#3 of 51 Neil White

Neil White

    Supporting Actor

  • 552 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 08 1999

Posted November 28 2003 - 06:08 AM

Existing furniture, room layout, desire for full HD capability (without spending a small fortune), personal preference of PQ. In other words, there are several factors. I personally will go FP when my budget allows me to completely redo my HT room with furniture and layout changes. The availability of reasonably priced HD performance and something that in my personal opinion offers a great picture will also sway me.

This is not meant as a detrimental comment towards FP. It's just my reasons for not going there yet.

N

#4 of 51 Sacha_C

Sacha_C

    Second Unit

  • 294 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 13 2003

Posted November 28 2003 - 06:09 AM

The bulbs look expensive but it comes to less than $10/month and thats with heavy use so its not that much.

And if you have a receiver why would you use crappy stereo from the TV when you can get 5.1 with prologic 2 or DD5.1 if you have digital cable. Why would you buy a receiver and only use it for movies? My receiver is my only sound source and it always on during the day when I'm home.

I agree about the ambient light but many projectors are viewable with moderate lighting.

#5 of 51 Garrett Lundy

Garrett Lundy

    Producer

  • 3,764 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 05 2002

Posted November 28 2003 - 06:11 AM

Ambient light is probably the largest issue because designers and architects feel this need to just add windows to every room of a house Posted Image.

Other factors:

*Cost.

*Set-up & maintenence complexity

*Not easy to use (try explaining how to work a universal remote and six devices switched through a reciever to my GF when she just wants to watch her "stories").

*Most TV fare looks like poop when shown larger than 32"
"Did you know that more people are murdered at 92 degrees Fahrenheit than any other temperature? I read an article once. Lower temperatures, people are easy-going, over 92 and it's too hot to move, but just 92, people get irritable."

#6 of 51 STLMIKE

STLMIKE

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 209 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 02 1998

Posted November 28 2003 - 06:22 AM

I typically don't power up my receiver if I'm just going to watch the news, a documentary, even sitcoms, etc. I would be more likely to on a drama or if it was a movie broadcast on TV, etc.

I hadn't considered the PQ issue, but on my 50" widescreen RPTV, the cable picture really isn't that good (admittedly, this may be an issue w/my cable), especially in stretch mode -- it is better if I view in 4x3 mode.

Also, there are times that I want to have the lights on while I'm watching TV -- either when I have people over, or if I'm eating dinner in the living room, etc.

#7 of 51 Jeff Gatie

Jeff Gatie

    Lead Actor

  • 6,529 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 19 2002

Posted November 28 2003 - 06:30 AM

Ambient light, room limitations, bulb cost ($10 a month is more than $0 a month), ease of use, CRT quality in a projector costs a fortune, etc.

If I had a dedicated room, I would probably opt for a projector for movies and a RPTV for regular tv watching. Since I do not, I enjoy the High Definition CRT based quality of my 56" RPTV at a distance of 7 feet.

#8 of 51 ChrisWiggles

ChrisWiggles

    Producer

  • 4,791 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 19 2002

Posted November 28 2003 - 06:32 AM

Because the priorities to get a TV may be many.

For instance, I ask myself this question all the time: Why the heck would anyone buy a digital projector under maybe 5-10k? I sure couldn't live with that kind of PQ when I can have a CRT fp instead. Obviously that's even another ripple of complication that most people aren't willing to deal with.

Obviously there are a LOT of priorities other than having a BIG picture, such as room lighting, ease of use, setup, picture quality, etc etc.

My .02

#9 of 51 Sacha_C

Sacha_C

    Second Unit

  • 294 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 13 2003

Posted November 28 2003 - 06:35 AM

"bulb cost ($10 a month is more than $0 a month)"

But a projector is MUCH cheaper than a TV for the same size, so even after 5-10 years it still ends up cheaper.

"Why the heck would anyone buy a digital projector under maybe 5-10k?"

Have you ever seen a projector? Even the $999 X1 gives amazing quality for the price.

#10 of 51 ChrisWiggles

ChrisWiggles

    Producer

  • 4,791 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 19 2002

Posted November 28 2003 - 07:02 AM

Yes I've seen many, and I couldn't live with much less than a high-end DLP, and then only maybe. Can't stand the lack of blacks, rainbows, or SDE.

I'd rather have an RPTV than all that.

That's why as I mentioned, I own a CRT fp. There's no comparison. And running a CRT is even cheaper still than a digital. No bulbs burning out all the time.

Again, it's a matter of priorities. The setup and size is something I'm willing to do. Many people aren't willing to deal with this. So they buy the cheapo digitals, which throw a decent enough picture. My priorities are picture quality, and picture quality only. And from MY perspective of PQ it's baffling as to why people use digitals, but totally understandable.

And size is not the only thing for PQ. Again as I mentioned, I'd rather have a good quality RPTV than a much huger, and inferior pj. Thankfully CRTs are plentiful and so I can have both.

Posted Image

#11 of 51 chris_clem

chris_clem

    Second Unit

  • 345 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2003

Posted November 28 2003 - 07:06 AM

Quote:
Why the heck would anyone buy a digital projector under maybe 5-10k?


Um... I have to second Sacha's reply to this one. There are LOTS of great FP's under 5k (even with the screen cost factored in)! I can almost guarantee that an FP can match or exceed a similarly priced RPTV's PQ and the screen will be much larger too! It's just a matter of properly setting it up. ...When was the last time you saw a hundred inch tv?Posted Image

However, I do feel that the great effort that one must exert to have a properly set up FP will always make TV's more appealing to most people.

TV: "I like that one" - you place it in a corner and you're done!

FP: "I like that one!" - Redecorate, eliminate light sources, calculate throw distances, BUY SURROUND SOUND, choose screen, etc, etc.

Case in point, I will have my new 300U FP setup by professionals tomorrow. It took me 6 months(!) of research and a week of redecorating to commit to this. Compare that to probably a week of research if I had just asked people here at the forum for a good solid RPTV. Posted Image

#12 of 51 Sacha_C

Sacha_C

    Second Unit

  • 294 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 13 2003

Posted November 28 2003 - 07:07 AM

The X1 only has the rainbow problem, and only very few people see them. And SDE and black levels are LCD problems.

"And running a CRT is even cheaper still than a digital. No bulbs burning out all the time."

You still need to replace the tubes in CRTs, sure they last almost 10 times longer, but cost at least 10 times as much.

#13 of 51 ChrisWiggles

ChrisWiggles

    Producer

  • 4,791 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 19 2002

Posted November 28 2003 - 07:30 AM

I see rainbows on most single-chip DLPs. And black levels on any digital just don't do it for me (yet). The only digital projector I've seen without SDE (I mean for all purposes TOTALLY without) is sony's SXRD. Absolutely stunning pixel packing, and you don't get that little blemish in the center of each pixel as you do with DLP, another distraction for me.

TV: "I like that one" - you place it in a corner and you're done!

[digital]FP: "I like that one!" - Redecorate, eliminate light sources, calculate throw distances, BUY SURROUND SOUND, choose screen, etc, etc.

CRT-FP: Above + Make sure tubes are in good condition, make sure unit works, ship it, or drive to go get it, get a bunch of buddies to help you hang it, build an HTPC that's stable, spend many weeks setting up your CRT to get the best picture. Again, it's just the most complicated way to go, but it's the best way to go.

This gets debated forever, but the comparisons are in CRTs and digitals that cost more like 20K and up. Having that same level of performance in your home for under 10K, and often WELL under 5K is QUITE a sacrifice in time and effort. There are lots of great digital FPs under 5K, but none that can touch a well-done CRT FP at that same price.

My goal wasn't to debate digital versus CRT. My goal was just to point out that people approach buying displays from VERY different perspectives, with very different goals. I'm just pointing out that while from YOUR perspective it's silly to get a TV when you can get a projector and a huge screen for less money. Likewise from MY perspective it's silly to get a digital projector for such little money when you can get a far superior projector for the same. So while my perspective is that if you are buying a display more than $500, you probably should look into a CRT projector. And perhaps my perspective is just as silly as yours when most people just want a regular no-fuss TV....

Posted Image

#14 of 51 John S

John S

    Producer

  • 5,460 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 04 2003

Posted November 28 2003 - 08:20 AM

Unless your HT room is a dedicated one, FP just doesn't work. It is that simple.

I just ordered my new RPTV recently and still feel it was by far the best deal and fit for me.

I looked at all technologies, and kept comming back to RPTV to meet my needs.

#15 of 51 Sacha_C

Sacha_C

    Second Unit

  • 294 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 13 2003

Posted November 28 2003 - 08:24 AM

"Unless your HT room is a dedicated one, FP just doesn't work. It is that simple."

That's ridicoulus, my room wont be dedicated at all, and why would it change anything? Is there a camera that comes out of the projector and then looks and thinks "a table? a desk? a printer? this isnt an dedicated room! I refuse to power on!".

I'm sure many people have a projector in a room that isnt dedicated.

#16 of 51 Jon_Heidbreder

Jon_Heidbreder

    Extra

  • 23 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 21 2003

Posted November 28 2003 - 08:41 AM

So do FP's work then if there is sun light coming into the room. I was under the impression it would be difficult to see in a room with a lot of sunlight?

The other thing is what do you project it onto? Is there some drop down screen that you have?

I must admit I dont know that much about FP.

#17 of 51 mark alan

mark alan

    Supporting Actor

  • 620 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 19 2002

Posted November 28 2003 - 11:02 AM

My question is, why only get a tv or a projector? Get both. I have a 36" tv and front projector in my basement. it is by far the best way to go.

#18 of 51 Jason Brent

Jason Brent

    Second Unit

  • 268 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 12 2002

Posted November 28 2003 - 01:39 PM

I'm in this debate right now. I was looking at about a $700-$800 budget, maybe $1000 max for a good deal.

I know I can get the X1 for that range or less. But most of my watching is cable. I don't want a crappy PQ. Right now I've been looking at the sales on the 36" direct views......

Is the X1 comparable to the PQ on a direct view set for SDTV?

#19 of 51 Sacha_C

Sacha_C

    Second Unit

  • 294 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 13 2003

Posted November 28 2003 - 01:57 PM

At the same image size, the quality will be much better on the projector, in fact it will always be better on the projector but if you go too big it will just magnify the imperfections, but if you sit far enough it shouldnt be a problem.

#20 of 51 george kaplan

george kaplan

    Executive Producer

  • 13,064 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 14 2001

Posted November 28 2003 - 03:00 PM

Well some of the debate in this thread about which type of projector, what the problems may or may not be, lead to a degree of uncertainty which is what keeps me from going the FP route.
"Movies should be like amusement parks. People should go to them to have fun." - Billy Wilder

"Subtitles good. Hollywood bad." - Tarzan, Sight & Sound 2012 voter.

"My films are not slices of life, they are pieces of cake." - Alfred Hitchcock"My great humility is just one of the many reasons that I...