Which FP in the 2,000 - 3,500 dollar range

Discussion in 'Displays' started by Allan.G, Jul 23, 2003.

  1. Allan.G

    Allan.G Auditioning

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm starting to look for a FP. Looking for a really good picture on a 102in dig screen I think its' 92" X 52". Viewing distance will be 10 to 18 feet. Will be mild to no ambient light. I was looking at LCD but truthfully don't know that much about the other types (still trying to do my reading and figure out what it all means) LOL.


    Any help you all could give me would be greatly appreciated !!
     
  2. Paul_Scott

    Paul_Scott Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Messages:
    6,546
    Likes Received:
    1
    you can start by reading up and doing searches over on avsforum.com.
    they have seperate forums for pjs w/ msrps over and under the $5K mark, but it is amazing how many threads (and owners) discuss pjs that can easily be found well under $5K in the over forum.
    just a testement to how much value you are getting for your money these days i guess.

    people are also being cautioned/advised to hold off on any pj purchases for a couple months until the big September trade show, as new models will be introduced and prices on last years hot pjs should fall.
    even the owner of the site, who also is a dealer, advised waiting...very interesting.

    i'm not too familiar with what all is available on the LCD side. i'm sure there are some good models out there to seek out, but someone else may know better than i.
    The NEC HT1000 has been getting near unanimous praise since it came out last fall, hardly anyone seems to have a bad word against it.
    you can find it for $3500 now (after the $500 rebate).
    the only strike against it seems to be its XGA resolution, which may not give you as smooth a picture at a certain viewing distance on some material, and cant resolve all the detail in a HD signal (much of this is relative to your viewing situation though).
    (edited to add: i just saw the HT1000 last night. while i was correct about an XGA pj in regards to HD material, in general if the pj has a very good scaler, which this one does, smoothness is not a concern.
    i was sitting 1.25 screen widths back and the picture was very smooth. i have to concur with the majority here, this pj at $3500 now is a phenomenal value!)


    i've been using a NEC LT150 for the last 2 years and it has been an exceptional performer-especially for the price ( i paid under $2), but for that price i've had to put up with some minor annoyances like slightly higher fan noise, and much less HT-centric features as it was made and sold to be a presentation pj.

    for a 92" wide screen at about 12' back, i would probably recommend a WXGA or above. screendoor/visible pixel structure start to be an issue for me at close to that same ratio.
    defocusing slightly (very slightly) helps, but 33% more pixels would probably go a lot longer ways to smoothing that out.
    i'm not convinced about the benefits of anamorphic add on lenses. i understand the benefits on paper, but in practical use, what i've seen hasn't impressed me.
    defocusing seems to accomplish 90% of the same thing for absolutely no extra money.

    also hit www.projectorcentral.com and read up on the various models and the formats ( LCD, DLP, LCOS) each have their pros and cons.

    i'm supposed to get a HT1000 in tomorrow and am eager to see if i can see if all the hype is true or overblown.
     
  3. Allan.G

    Allan.G Auditioning

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the advise. I have gone and done some reading and now I want a dlp projector. I have been looking at the Optoma H56 and the Optoma H76. After doing some reading now about Asp. Ratio I have another headache. I will be watching 16:9 DVD's and Cable at 4:3. I found a really good article about this here. http://www.projectorcentral.com/formats.htm
    I thought when I started this that I would want a 16:9 but now I'm thinking about a 4:3 with a big screen at least 8' wide and 6' tall.

    Could someone give me there thoughts on this? What do you have? and why did you go that way?

    If I'm right before when I thought I wanted a 16:9 I was going with a 8' X 5' screen, But if I went with the 4:3 and the 8' x 6' then I cold get 4:3 to fill the whole screen and in 16:9 mode I would still get the same size screen that I wanted in the first place with some unused space at top and bottom.

    But I assume that with the 4:3 the res would not be as good as the 16:9 projector would be!

    I would like to have HD quality in the 16:9 mode is this possible?


    Once again thanks for the help
     
  4. Paul_Scott

    Paul_Scott Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Messages:
    6,546
    Likes Received:
    1
    i made my own screen out of drapery liner and stapled it to a wood frame.
    that hangs on the wall.
    i then built another frame in front of that which has black velvet on all sides to create the open area that i project on.
    i did that so i could have a constant height/ variable width like at a real theater.

    i'm a big believer in masking. i realize that many people can't do this in their rooms, but if you can it goes a long way to providing a good experience.
    here is a diagram of how i did mine
    when you have some kind of masking system in place, the actual ratio screen you buy is not as important.
    in that case you would just buy the largest width screen you wanted.
    i think 4:3 screens may still be cheaper at this point.

    many people think buying a 4:3 pj is foolish as everything is going to 16:9, but if you think you will still be watching a lot of 4:3 material...what the hell- go for it.

    XGA (4:3) pjs can't fully resolve an HD signal, but then again, neither can those 16:9s at the moment.
    with a WXGA(16:9) pj you are still only getting 1/2 the detail available in that HD signal.
    its just that at that ratio, it is more cleanly scaled, and there are still more pixels to address detail than the XGA.
    a HD signal will still look very nice on a XGA, and better than something like a dvd source (although you will be surprised how good some dvds can look).
    but the native AR of the 16:9s reveal a bigger gulf between the two.

    of course you have to be careful.
    there are pjs out there that use the Matterhorn chip which is also 16:9, but what that chip is, is just a cropped XGA chip. you'll get the same # of pixels as those XGA pjs, but 4:3 material will be pillar boxed inside that, whereas with a regular XGA, the 4:3 content would be greatest resolution, and 16:9 material would fit inside that.

    the bang for the buck is probably with 4:3 right now, both in screens and in pjs, but that could change soon.

    defintely get out and demo whatever you can- even if you have to drive a hundred miles to do so.
    you really have to see this stuff for yourself to know what is going to work best for you.
     
  5. Neil Joseph

    Neil Joseph Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 1998
    Messages:
    8,332
    Likes Received:
    1
    Real Name:
    Neil Joseph
    This is the way I look at it (re: 16x9 or 4x3 setup)...

    Which is more important to you and which source provides the better image. You could go with a 4x3 setup and have a larger 4x3 image but is the 4x3 source of better or worse quality than the 16x9 source? If you are going to watch cable then you could have a nice blown up image of a poor source and also have to settle for a smaller 16x9 image within the 4x3 screen (with black bars at the top and bottom).

    On the flip side, if you went with a 16x9 setup then you would obviously have a larger 16x9 image (dvd and hdef signals) and have to settle for a smaller 4x3 image but if the 4x3 source is of a lesser quality anyway then would that not be a better choice?
     

Share This Page