Remember that argument about content

[Zing]

I think the display size to relative to investment value still leans heavily toward the front PJ system.

Case in point:
125" Elite Screen Motorized Screen - $262
Panasonic PT-AE8000 PJ - $1700

Add in a mount and a cable, and you've got a whopping image that barely broke $2K.

I just don't see a fixed display of comparable size - of any tech - ever being that inexpensive.

 

[Yesfan70]

It makes it harder, that's for sure. Compared to my setup, pros and cons for me would be.....

Pros
Better picture quality (720p vs 4k)
Shorter cable runs from the projector to the a/v pre/pro or receiver
longer shelf life vs changing out projector bulb

Cons
smaller size
higher priced (my projo setup cost me less than $700 if you count the cost of a mitre saw and material for a fixed screen)



If 4k projectors could be had for close to the same price as a 70-80 inch 4k flat screen, then that would make it easier. I agree with T7 and Bats, there is something about the feel of a projector, but man some of those 4k displays are beautiful.

 

[Yesfan70]

I think the display size to relative to investment value still leans heavily toward the front PJ system.

Case in point:
125" Elite Screen Motorized Screen - $262
Panasonic PT-AE8000 PJ - $1700

Add in a mount and a cable, and you've got a whopping image that barely broke $2K.

I just don't see a fixed display of comparable size - of any tech - ever being that inexpensive.

:text-+1:


My Pioneer Elite RPTV was the shizznit back in the mid 90s. A 60" monster that was 7 times the cost of my current projector setup and it wasn't even a HD display (S-video).

 

[Haywood]

I am very likely to drop $3-5k on my next TV, which is very likely to be 75-inches.

 

[Towen7]

Thats awesome and I think that's fairly close to typical.

I'm with Batman though. I'm of the opinion that the market for 80" sets will increase but I can't see them driving FPs out the market. FPs will continue to be the go-to for theaters where displays of 90" or more are needed/wanted or where other factors restrict mounting a flat panel.

I also think that dedicated home theaters are becoming much less common than they already are. This may correlate to people compromising on 70-80 display in the living room instead of a 100" in a dedicated room.

 

[Haywood]

There are probably a lot of folks out there like me who would LOVE to have a dedicated theater, but are either renting or living in a home with no good place to put one. I've been wanting a dedicated room for well over a decade, but have yet to be in a position to make it happen. Large televisions are a god-send for people like me, because a 75" screen in a living room can still provide a very good home theater experience. It is clearly not the experience provided by a 140 inch screen, but it is at least big enough at living room seating distances (10-12 feet) to provide something that is visually engaging.

My big worry right now is that I will be forced to either compromise on picture quality or move down to a 65-inch set in order to keep the budget under control. I can justify $3-4k, but $5-6 is giving me heartburn. This is definitely one of those times when paying the early adopter tax comes into play and that is exactly why I was going to wait another year. Unfortunately, my current set is dropping about a mirror a week, leaving 1/8" black spots scattered across the screen. The set has also lost a light of brightness and color saturation, likely as the result of nine-years of grime inside the RPTV mechanism and there is a visible layer of dust in there somewhere. It is very definitely time for a new set.

 

[MatthewB]

I think the display size to relative to investment value still leans heavily toward the front PJ system.

Case in point:
125" Elite Screen Motorized Screen - $262
Panasonic PT-AE8000 PJ - $1700

Add in a mount and a cable, and you've got a whopping image that barely broke $2K.

I just don't see a fixed display of comparable size - of any tech - ever being that inexpensive.

:text-+1:


My Pioneer Elite RPTV was the shizznit back in the mid 90s. A 60" monster that was 7 times the cost of my current projector setup and it wasn't even a HD display (S-video).

I still use my Pioneer Elite 58" RPTV weekly in my main HT. Using my DVDO VP30 as my video scaler the PQ is right up there with my newer 50" LED TV. Granted it's not as sharp as the LED but has way better black levels and has more of a movie theater image than the newer TV's which to me makes images seem soap operish when people set the scan rate way to high. One of the reasons I stuck with a cheaper 60Hz LED 1080p set as 120Hz is gimmicky to me.

 

[Haywood]

In order to play 24fps content directly, you need a direct multiple of 24, which means 120hz or 240hz, but not 60hz. The soap opera effect is caused by processing that you can shut off in most sets.

 

[Deleted member 133]

Good points everyone.

There's obviously room in this HT universe for both flat screen displays and projector / screen systems - with a variety of technologies for each and every component to choose from. Meaning that we should all be able to find something with good image quality, at a good price, that suits the room it's intended for.

Most of us don't have the space, nor budget, to do the ne plus ultra of systems, but with the exception of one friend who insists on running his flat screen with all the "special effects" (240Hz, frame interpolation, etc. etc.) fully engaged (resulting in the most unreal-looking artificial video-like image possible) none of the HT's that I've ever visited ever presented a video image that wasn't perfectly good to watch without detracting from the source material.

I like my plain-Jane Sharp Aquos 56" 1080p LCD in the ambient light-infused family room HT. Until it fails I see no need to ever change it.

I really like having a screen / projector system in my main HT, where I can control ambient light down to basically none at any time of the day. I like that I invested a lot in the screen (back when I had the money to do so) and that it should last a lifetime. It's only 96" but I sit only 7' back from it. As I've pointed out before, I designed it that way to mimic the (visual) experience of sitting half way back in a big movie theatre watching a big screen. And as I've preached on many occasion, I really like that it is acoustically transparent thus allowing for as close to ideal speaker placement as you'll likely ever find in any HT.

The only "picture" component that I'd thus consider replacing in either HT, would be the main HT's projector. However with replacement bulbs now costing all of $60, and me still loving the picture that that TI DC3-based 720p DLP puts out, I'm in no rush - unless it craps-out altogether. (The original colour flywheel suffered an infant-mortality and was replaced under warranty, but there's been no issues since.) Besides, at some point I would expect my visual acuity to start degrading with increasing age to the point where I won't likely be able to fully-appreciated ever-increasing improvements in the technology.

Jeff

 

[Haywood]

The big benefit of the new tech is not so much the resolution of the image as it is the color gamut, contrast, black level, etc. I had a major "holy shit" moment when I got to see some of these sets next to the display tech we're all more accustomed to. It is NOT subtle.

 

[Zing]

In order to play 24fps content directly, you need a direct multiple of 24, which means 120hz or 240hz, but not 60hz. The soap opera effect is caused by processing that you can shut off in most sets.

Reverse pulldown compensates for this when the processing frequency isn't a multiple of 24 but it also introduced artifacts. But that was largely a problem in years past so I suppose it's all but moot today.

 

[Haywood]

In order to play 24fps content directly, you need a direct multiple of 24, which means 120hz or 240hz, but not 60hz. The soap opera effect is caused by processing that you can shut off in most sets.

Reverse pulldown compensates for this when the processing frequency isn't a multiple of 24 but it also introduced artifacts. But that was largely a problem in years past so I suppose it's all but moot today.

Nope. It still makes a difference.